← All Phrases

“condonation of delay”

AppealsSection 249Section 24912,312 judgments

The decision most relied on for condonation of delay is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court
368
citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr
398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court
291
citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others
118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court
182
citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

Judgments citing condonation of delay

Finova Capital Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 263

appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay and prayed for condonation of delay, the content of the affidavit reads as under :- I, Mohit Sahney, son of Late Mr. Kamal Krishna Sahney, resident of 55, Grenade Marg, Pratap ... described above, a delay of 263 days occurred in filing the appeal and accordingly I respectfully request the honorable ITAT, Jaipur to kindly condone this delay. I acknowledge the significance of adhering to deadlines and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. I want to assure you that corrective measures have

Smt. Santra, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

The appeals are disposed of for statistical

ITA 1163/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Two Separate Orders Dated 19.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (In Short ‘The Act’) Whereby Two Separate Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11, Have Been Dismissed While Upholding The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer After Conducting Quantum Smt. Santra Proceedings & Also The Other Order Vide Which The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 250

mentioned here that both the appeals before us came to be filed after delay of about 25 days. In order to seek condonation of delay, an application was filed in each appeal, initially under the signatures of Sh. P. C. Parwal, ld. AR of the assessee. However, when ... signatures of the assessee was filed, on 9.12.2014, afresh, but joint and not separate application has been presented before the Registry seeking condonation of delay in respect of both the appeals. The application is accompanied by her affidavit. 4. Ld. AR for the assessee-appellant has submitted that the assessee

Smt. Santra, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

The appeals are disposed of for statistical

ITA 1162/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Two Separate Orders Dated 19.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (In Short ‘The Act’) Whereby Two Separate Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11, Have Been Dismissed While Upholding The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer After Conducting Quantum Smt. Santra Proceedings & Also The Other Order Vide Which The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 250

mentioned here that both the appeals before us came to be filed after delay of about 25 days. In order to seek condonation of delay, an application was filed in each appeal, initially under the signatures of Sh. P. C. Parwal, ld. AR of the assessee. However, when ... signatures of the assessee was filed, on 9.12.2014, afresh, but joint and not separate application has been presented before the Registry seeking condonation of delay in respect of both the appeals. The application is accompanied by her affidavit. 4. Ld. AR for the assessee-appellant has submitted that the assessee

Sh. Hemraj Morya, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1141/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69

that there is delay of 142 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay with following reasons: (i) That the appellate order was passed by ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 18-02- 2024 which stood upload ... contention of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the prayer as made by the assessee for condonation of delay of 142 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 142 days in filing the above

Shivaji Irmali, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3186/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Nclt

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 for the A.Y.2014-15. 2. At the outset, the appeal is time barred by 21 days. In the petition of condonation of delay it has been stated that the assessee was unaware of this order as he was pre-occupied in his work related to the firm

Prashant, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 514/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraprashant, V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) 2-B, Wazidpur, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Aaykar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Admpk9965F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 254(3)Section 50C

hereinafter “the Act”). As per noting of Registry, this appeal is time barred by one day. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative

Smt. Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1309/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1309/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Sumitradevi The Ito बनाम/ Kamalkumar Agrawal Ward-5(3)(2) V/S. C/O.Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Times Square-1 Opp. Ram Baug Bungalow Thaltej, Shilaj Road, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 059 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaupa 5783 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan H. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 3.1. Keeping in view the reason given by the assessee in her application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay of 82 days on the part of the assessee

Nikhil Vijendra Jain, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1450/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 271A

aside by the ITAT in ITA No.684/PUN/2024 for A.Y.2018-19 dated 05.08.2024. Ld.AR submitted that hence no penalty is maintainable. Ld.AR filed petition for condonation of delay. Condonation of Delay : 2.1 We have perused the submission of the assessee and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, Delay

Shri Santosh Harichand Katrela, Beed vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1, Beed

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 339/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.339/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Santosh Harichand Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Beed. Katrela, Audut Campus, Jalna Road, Gujrathi Colony Beed, Beed- 431122. Pan : Akgpk6862N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Filed With Delay Of 99 Days. In The Light Of The Fact That Due To Covid-19 Pandemic The Period Of Limitation Has Already Been Extended By Hon’Ble Supreme

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

filed in time & accordingly admitted for adjudication. 3. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Appellant request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellate order u/s.250 - dt. 18/03/2019 passed by CIT (As)-, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was received on 18/03/2021 ... such appeal was due to be filed on or before 17/05/2021, Application for condonation of delay is being separately filed affirming the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Thus, it is requested to please condone the delay in filing the appeal, considering the widespread pandemic situation, and admit

M/S Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., Nagpur vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 381/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

corporate debtor deserves to be admitted.” 5. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee also highlighted the contents of the Affidavit furnished for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, which is also reproduced below:– “We, M/s. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant") through our Resolution ... appeal and in our opinion technicalities should not come as an impediment for grant of justice. In this view of the matter, we condone the delay of 864 days. 5 M/s. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd. ITA no.381/Nag./2024 7. While going through the impugned order passed by the learned

M/S Unijules Life Sciences Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 380/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 7

corporate debtor deserves to be admitted.” 5. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee also highlighted the contents of the Affidavit furnished for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, which is also reproduced below:– “We, M/s. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant") through our Resolution ... appeal and in our opinion technicalities should not come as an impediment for grant of justice. In this view of the matter, we condone the delay of 864 days. 7. While going through the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), we find that the learned

Shri Pankaj Nandlal Agrawal, Nagpur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 250

While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed an application dated 18/05/2024, requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for the delay in filing the appeal, as contained in the said application, are as under ... resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 7. It is respectfully submitted that the appellant is submitting the Application for Condonation of Delay along with the Appeal Memo in Form No. 36 here with. In view of above facts, it is respectfully submitted that all these aspects

Shri Pankaj Nandlal Agrawal, Nagpur vs. DCIT-Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 250

While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed an application dated 18/05/2024, requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for the delay in filing the appeal, as contained in the said application, are as under ... resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 7. It is respectfully submitted that the appellant is submitting the Application for Condonation of Delay along with the Appeal Memo in Form No. 36 here with. In view of above facts, it is respectfully submitted that all these aspects

Shri Pankaj Nandlal Agrawal, Nagpur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 250

While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed an application dated 18/05/2024, requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for the delay in filing the appeal, as contained in the said application, are as under ... resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 7. It is respectfully submitted that the appellant is submitting the Application for Condonation of Delay along with the Appeal Memo in Form No. 36 here with. In view of above facts, it is respectfully submitted that all these aspects

Shri Pankaj Nandlal Agrawal, Nagpur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 250

While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed an application dated 18/05/2024, requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for the delay in filing the appeal, as contained in the said application, are as under ... resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 7. It is respectfully submitted that the appellant is submitting the Application for Condonation of Delay along with the Appeal Memo in Form No. 36 here with. In view of above facts, it is respectfully submitted that all these aspects

Purushottam Narayanrao Jadhao, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed an Affidavit sworn on 19/04/2024, requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for the delay in filing the appeal, as contained in the said affidavit, are as under:– “Sufficient ... challenge the assessment order passed by the learned CIT(A) by way of appeal filed before your Honour with a request for condonation of delay. In view of this, it is prayed that the delay of just 21 days may kindly be condoned in order to render the justice

Anita Snehadeep Soni, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 69A

While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed a letter dated 30/11/2024, requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for the delay in filing the appeal, as contained in the letter dated 30/11/2024, are as under ... inordinate delay of 138 days in filing the appeal. 3. That, accordingly, the present appeal is being filed along with the application of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 4. The appellant is small business woman, homemaker and all her financial transactions were managed by her husband

Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Nagpur vs. Ggf Mercantile Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross–objection are dismissed in terms indicated above

ITA 415/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 153C

located in New Delhi, we grant liberty to the parties to filed fresh appeals before the Mumbai Benches along with petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals, which shall be considered sympathetically by the concerned Bench. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the appeals are dismissed.” 4. Since ... Revenue and the assessee to filed its appeal / cross–objection before the appropriate Bench i.e., at Mumbai, along with application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals, if required, which shall be considered by the concerned Bench in accordance with law. 4 GGF Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.415/Nag./2023

Chilakala Govinda Sekhar, Mylavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Proddutur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1173/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Ms.Reema Yadav,DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

that there is a delay of 331 days in the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal has been 2 filed. The learned Counsel for the assessee ... assessee submitted that the reasons given by the assessee are vague in nature and does not come under reasonable cause for condoning huge delay of 331 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned. 3 4. We have heard both the parties

Venkata Gurunatha Rao Swamy, Suryapet vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1032/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

that there is a delay of 154 days in the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit, explaining the reasons has been filed. The learned Counsel for 2 the assessee, referring to the petition filed ... condoned. 4. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant reasons given by the appellant in their petition filed for condonation of delay and after going through the reasons, we find that the reasons given by the appellant seems to be 3 bonafide and reasonable, because