← 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

Sripada Srivallabha Maha Samstanam, Pithapuram vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 289/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.289/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sripada Srivallabha Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahasamsthanam Exemption Ward Pithapuram Rajahmundry Pan:Aadts8424P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Vvs Narayana Medisetti राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri VVS Narayana MedisettiFor Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 11(2)Section 143(3)

Executive Officer of the assessee trust. 3. We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR on the condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained, for delay in filing of the present appeal in the application for condonation of delay. The learned AR submitted that ... appeal is neither intentional or wanton, but due to the circumstances explained. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay Page 2 of 7 ITA 289 OF 2023 Sripada srivallabha Maha Samsthanam and submitted that the assessee has not explained sufficient cause

K. Selvaraj, Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Cricle 1 Hosur, Hosur

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

ITA 2434/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2434/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 K. Selvaraj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 147/28B, Ganthi Nagar, Income Tax, Kirshnagiri 635 001. Circle 1, [Pan: Aanps0770Q] Hosur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 124 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 are bonafide, which really 2 I.T.A

Estate of Late K Mahes Rep by Krishna Mahesh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Ward 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2422/CHNY/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2422/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Estate Of Late K. Mahesh Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By Krishna Mahesh, New No. 81, Income Tax, Old No. 39, First Main Road, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Rajaannamalaipuram, Chennai. Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabae4843K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, 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 : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur, For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Assessee Raised Sole Issue Of Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)

assessee raised sole issue of challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 I.T.A. No.2422/Chny/24 3. We note that intimation order under section ... data and documents of the deceased person of his Estate took time and the assessee is ready to submit separate application/ affidavit for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT relied on the order

Kpspl 102 Kilambi Paccs Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 2421/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2420 & 2421/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Kpspl 102 Kilambi Paccs Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kilambi Village, Krishnapuram Post, Ward 1, Kanchipuram Taluka, Kanchipuram Kanchipuram 631 501.. District, Tamil Nadu 631 551. [Pan: Aabak5264E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""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 : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Dated 27.06.2024 & 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Set Exparte. We Proceed To Decide Both The Appeals On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

mentioning “Yes” against Col. 11 “whether there is any delay in filing of appeal” in Form 36, but, not filed any petitions for condonation of delay duly supported by affidavits for both the appeals. The Registry of ITAT, Chennai Bench issued separate defect notices dated 15.10.2024 for both the appeals

Kpspl 102 Kilambi Paccs Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 2420/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2420 & 2421/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Kpspl 102 Kilambi Paccs Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kilambi Village, Krishnapuram Post, Ward 1, Kanchipuram Taluka, Kanchipuram Kanchipuram 631 501.. District, Tamil Nadu 631 551. [Pan: Aabak5264E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""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 : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Dated 27.06.2024 & 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Set Exparte. We Proceed To Decide Both The Appeals On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

mentioning “Yes” against Col. 11 “whether there is any delay in filing of appeal” in Form 36, but, not filed any petitions for condonation of delay duly supported by affidavits for both the appeals. The Registry of ITAT, Chennai Bench issued separate defect notices dated 15.10.2024 for both the appeals

Perumal Loganathan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-19(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2404/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2404/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Perumal Loganathan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 103, 1St Street, 8Th Avenue, Non Corporate Ward 19(2), Pallava Garden, Old Pallavaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 117. [Pan: Abipl8407B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms.S. Jecintha, 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 : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Ms.S. Jecintha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 16 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find 2 I.T.A. No.2404/Chny/24 the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really

Vasudevan Balaji, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2249/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2249/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vasudevan Balaji, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 187-A, Z Block, 5Th Street, Non Corporate Ward 7(1), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Axmpb0416A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate For Shri N. Vijay Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugresan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 49 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For The Said Delay. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate for Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugresan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 49 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating reasons for the said delay. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the 2 I.T.A. No.2249/Chny/24 affidavit, we find that ... reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time and accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate advisory

Ags Holiday Resorts, Vellore vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2012/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2012/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ags Holiday Resorts, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 350/2G 350/2B1, Athanayur Income Tax, Village, Palkaniyur Road, Yelagiri Hills, Central Circle 3(4), Tirupattur, Vellore 635 853. Chennai. [Pan: Abefa0740L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 20, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 5 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

year 2019-20. 2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 5 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