← 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

Rajesh M. Bhatia (HUF), Salem vs. DCIT, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1911/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1911 & 1912/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh M. Bhatia (Huf), Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 389, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Salem 636 006. Salem. [Pan: Aachr9909R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 13.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Relating To Quantum Addition & Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 25Section 270A

short]. 2. We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we 2 I.T.A. Nos.1911 & 1912/Chny/24 find the reasons stated ... I.T.A. No. 1912/Chny/2024 13. We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Co Operative Bank Limited, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1898/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1898, 2137 & 2139/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2020-21 & 2020-2021) The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ward 2(1), No.330, Bhavani Road, Erode Perundurai, Erode 638 052. [Pan: Aabat 2523R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Irs, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

appeal before the CIT(A) by the Act. The ld. CIT(A) before proceeding to decide merits of the appeal, has adjudicated the condonation of delay of 1603 days. In the condonation of delay assessee submitted that it is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative credit Society and the Society ... Taxation matters of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Society identified the pending proceedings and immediately filed the Appeal and hence requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal. According to the ld.CIT(A), assessee has merely mentioned that the delay was due to Covid Pandemic-19 and there

United Futuristic Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, the present cross-appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4219/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit, Circle – 8(3)(1) Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020 ............... Appellant V/S United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd., Unit No.301, 3Rd Floor, Turf Estate Off Dr. E Moses Road, Shakti Mill Lane Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011, ……………… Respondent Maharashtra Pan : Aabcu7296C United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd., Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point, Unit No.301, 3Rd Floor, Turf Estate Off Dr. E Moses Road, Shakti Mill Lane Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011, Maharashtra ……………… Appellant Pan : Aabcu7296C V/S Acit, Circle – 8(3)(1) Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020 …………….. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR
Section 250

assessee’s appeal is delayed by 31 days. Along with its appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal which is duly supported by an affidavit. In the aforesaid application, the assessee submitted that on 22.05.2024 it received an email ... aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal was delayed by 31 days. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay falls within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

ACIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present cross-appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3674/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit, Circle – 8(3)(1) Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020 ............... Appellant V/S United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd., Unit No.301, 3Rd Floor, Turf Estate Off Dr. E Moses Road, Shakti Mill Lane Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011, ……………… Respondent Maharashtra Pan : Aabcu7296C United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd., Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point, Unit No.301, 3Rd Floor, Turf Estate Off Dr. E Moses Road, Shakti Mill Lane Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011, Maharashtra ……………… Appellant Pan : Aabcu7296C V/S Acit, Circle – 8(3)(1) Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020 …………….. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR
Section 250

assessee’s appeal is delayed by 31 days. Along with its appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal which is duly supported by an affidavit. In the aforesaid application, the assessee submitted that on 22.05.2024 it received an email ... aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal was delayed by 31 days. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay falls within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag