← 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

Veej Kamgar Co Operative Credit Society Ltd, Nanded vs. ITO Ward (1), Nanded

ITA 2080/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2080/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Veej Kamgar Co-Operative V The Income Tax Officer, Credit Society Ltd., S Ward-1, Nanded. Vidyut Bhavan, New Mondha, Nanded District, Nanded – 431602. Pan: Aaajv0065E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi - Dr Date Of Hearing 25/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017- 18 Dated 18.01.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That The Ld.Ao Erred In Passing The Assessment Order By Disallowing The Deduction Of The Assessee On The Grounds That The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80(P)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On The Interest Income Received From Nationalized Banks & Assessed The Same As 'Income From Other Sources', Thereby Raising A Demand Of Rs.23,93,554/-. 2. That Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred By Confirming The Disallowance Of The Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, Amounting To Rs.23,93,554/- By The Ld. Ao. The Disallowance Was Based On The Ground That Interest Income Earned From State Bank Of Hyderabad Or Nationalised Banks By The Appellant Is Necessarily Required To Be Treated As Income Under The Head 'Income From Other Sources', Which Does Not Qualify For Deduction Under Either Section 80P(2)(A)(I) Or Section 80P(2)(D), Thereby Confirming A Demand Of Rs.23,93,554/-. 3. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute, Delete Any Or All Grounds Of The Appeal, If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

observed that there is a delay of 300 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is at page no.1 to 6 of the paper book. It has been submitted that the Secretary of the assessee expired due to Heart Attack