← 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

Pancghvarnam Thangaraj, Port Blair vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(4), Port Blair

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1855/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1855/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pancghvarnam Thangaraj…….. ……..……………………....Appellant Aberdeen Bazar, Port Blair, Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Island – 744102. [Pan: Aejpt7625M] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Port Blair…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar & Vidhi Ladia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To A Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay.

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

drew our attention to a delay of 35 days in filing the instant appeal. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay citing valid and proper reasons. After considering the averments made in the application, we condone the delay. 3. The brief facts of the case are that

Satish Bandapelly, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 999/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.998 To 1001/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Satish Bandapelly Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15 (1) Pan:Adxpb2169D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 4 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Dated 5/8/2024 & 17/08/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Penalty Orders Passed U/S 271Aac(1), 271B & 271F Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Respectively For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala,DR
Section 147Section 271A

appeals of the assessee filed against the assessment order as well as respective penalty orders on the ground of limitation by declining the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. He has pointed out that there was a delay of 551 days in filing the appeals before the learned ... about these orders and could not file appeal before the learned CIT (A) within the period of limitation. He has filed petition for condonation of delay before the Tribunal which are supported by affidavits of the assessee. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeals

Satish Bandapelly, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 998/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.998 To 1001/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Satish Bandapelly Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15 (1) Pan:Adxpb2169D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 4 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Dated 5/8/2024 & 17/08/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Penalty Orders Passed U/S 271Aac(1), 271B & 271F Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Respectively For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala,DR
Section 147Section 271A

appeals of the assessee filed against the assessment order as well as respective penalty orders on the ground of limitation by declining the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. He has pointed out that there was a delay of 551 days in filing the appeals before the learned ... about these orders and could not file appeal before the learned CIT (A) within the period of limitation. He has filed petition for condonation of delay before the Tribunal which are supported by affidavits of the assessee. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeals