← 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

DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata vs. Arya Realty Developers Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1918/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1918/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-2(2), Kolkata…….…..………………........………………....Appellant Vs. Arya Realty Developers Pvt. Ltd.…............................…..…..... Respondent P-95, Lake View Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aaica1390C] Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 26, Kolkata [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. Dr Raised Issue Of A Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Revenue Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid Reasons. After Hearing The Submissions, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Declared Business Income Of Rs.3,81,39,040/-. The Assessing Officer Treated This Income As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act & Accordingly Re- Classified It Under The Head ‘Income From Other Sources’ By Applying Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

raised issue of a delay of 35 days in filing the instant appeal. The revenue has submitted an application for condonation of delay citing valid reasons. After hearing the submissions, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that

Babu Sahab, Sandur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hosapete

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Babu Sahab, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Deogiri Post Sandur Tq, Ward –2, Bellary Dist. – 583 112. Hosapete. Pan : Aqqps 2313 J Appellant Respondent Respondent By : Shri. Shiv Prasad Reddy, Ar Appellant By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061565361(1)].

For Appellant: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for RevenueFor Respondent: Shri. Shiv Prasad Reddy, AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

hearing, we notice that the appeal has been filed belatedly by 15 days for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is placed on record wherein it is stated that the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 69 years old and documents were handed ... Tribunal and that the tax consultant took more time for filing the appeal. On going through the Page 2 of 4 application for condonation of delay dated 12.07.2024, placed in Paper Book at pages 4 – 6 and Form No.36 as per Sl. No.12, the appeal filing fee of Rs.10