← 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

Aasife Biriyani Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2460/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2460/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Aasife Biriyani Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Glrs, No.325, Door No.11/3Q, Corporate Circle 1(1) Railway Station Road, Chennai. Azharkhana, Alandur, Chennai 600 016. [Pan: Aamca 9955H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram & Ms. Sonali Kothari.S. Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.T.M. Suganthamala, Irs, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram and MsFor Respondent: Ms.T.M. Suganthamala, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 253(6)

assessee for adjudication and overruled the objection of the Registry. We also perused the affidavit of director of Company and the reasons, we condone the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. We have also deliberated upon the reasons given in form ... Anantnag v. Katiji, [A.I.R. 1987 (S.C.) 1353] has emphatically held that Courts should take a liberal, justice-oriented, justifiable and reasonable approach in condoning the delay. The Courts have been reminded that a party who, as per the present adversial legal system, has selected his advocate, briefed him and paid

Mmtc-Pamp India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1023/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1023/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2015-16) Mmtc-Pamp India P. Ltd., Plot No. 221, Ground Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, S.O Tehkhand South East Delhi-110020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aafcm-3576-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 6, C.R Building, Ito, I.P Estate, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Deepti Gupta, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 12.01.2024, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Counsel For The Assessee Stated At Bar That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Issue In Appeal Under Vsvs 2024. He Placed On Record Copy Of Form No. 1 Filed Under The Scheme & Submitted That Form No. 2 From The Department Is Awaited. He Prayed For Withdrawing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. Deepti Gupta, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

appeal in the event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS

Murali Nukala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1148/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1148/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Murali Nukala Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Abfpn1674F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Kumar, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Reema Yadav, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 09/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Reema Yadav, DR
Section 115Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

delay of 4 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. The appellant has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The 3 learned Counsel for the assessee, referring to petition filed by the appellant ... said delay is neither intentional nor wanton of any undue benefit, but purely beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 3. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant reasons given

Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1023/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1023/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indur Developers & Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 Agencies Private Limited Nizamabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabci4254Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao,Ar (Through Virtual Mode) Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 09/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/02/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao,ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 37

delay of 177 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. The appellant has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The learned Counsel for the assessee, referring to petition filed by the appellant, submitted ... said delay is neither intentional nor wanton of any undue benefit, but purely beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld.DR on the other hand, opposing the petition filed by the assessee, submitted that the reasons given

Vedre Pranathie, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1004/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1004/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vedre Pranathie Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-4(4) [Pan : Abzpv3765B] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 09/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18/06/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Registry Has Noticed Delay Of 46 Days In The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Explained That Although The Ld.Cit(A) Passed Order On 18.06.2024, The Appellant Has Received The Impugned Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) On 03.09.2024 & If We

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

also explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, without condoning the delay and also upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposited u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order ... filing the appeal in time and dismissed the appeal. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in one line finding, although the reasons given by the appellant appears to be bonafide and reasonable. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed