← 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

M/S. Lakshmi Narayana Constructions, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(6), Chennai

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

ITA 1958/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1958/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) M/S. Lakshmi Narayana Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Constructions, Non Corporate Ward 10(6) No.10, Kalaimagal Nagar, Chennai. Kolathur, Chennai 600 099. [Pan: Aacfl 6543K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.Lekha, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. V. Justin, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms.Lekha, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

appeal has to be filed on or before 23.04.2024 but was filed only on 22.07.2024. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating that income-tax matters were handled by her husband until he passed away in the year 2019. Until that time all the notices and orders ... Tribunal on 22.07.2024 with a delay of 90 days. When these facts were confronted to the ld. JCIT-DR, he objected for condoning the delay. We find the cause as reasonable and hence, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 03. Brief facts of the case are that

Lakshmi Deepthi Boodla, Khammam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Khammam

ITA 961/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.960 & 961/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Lakshmi Deepthi Boodla Vs. Ito Khammam Ward-1 [Pan : Aqbpb4743L] Khammam (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 25/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/11/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 12/07/2024, Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16. Since The Facts Are Identical, Issues Are Common & Interconnected, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were 2 Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

this consolidated order. 2. These two appeals filed by the Assessee are time barred by 14 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee who looks after her income tax matters shifted his residence from Khammam to Hyderabad ... days is due to the reasons submitted which are beyond the control of the assessee and not intentional. The assessee, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee. In this case, the order

Lakshmi Deepthi Boodla, Khammam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Khammam

ITA 960/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.960 & 961/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Lakshmi Deepthi Boodla Vs. Ito Khammam Ward-1 [Pan : Aqbpb4743L] Khammam (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 25/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/11/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 12/07/2024, Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16. Since The Facts Are Identical, Issues Are Common & Interconnected, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were 2 Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

this consolidated order. 2. These two appeals filed by the Assessee are time barred by 14 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee who looks after her income tax matters shifted his residence from Khammam to Hyderabad ... days is due to the reasons submitted which are beyond the control of the assessee and not intentional. The assessee, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee. In this case, the order

Sri Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Contractor G Muralikrishna G vs. Satish & Co, Kaikaluruvs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 436/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan(Through Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 436/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sri Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Income Tax Officer, Contractors G Vs. Ward-1, Muralikrishna G V S Bhimavaram-534201. Satish & Co, Kaikaluru-521333, Eluru District. [Pan : Adefs2940Q] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K Siva Rama Kumar, Ar रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2024 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 25/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri K Siva Rama Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 250Section 250(6)

dismissing the same in limine. 4. Though the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee as to condonation of delay, the fact remains that there is no contradiction as to the statement made in the petition that the assessee-firm was closed down on 31/03/2022 ... fact that no rights are crystallized by afflux of time in favour of any party. The highest that would happen by condoning the delay and allowing an opportunity to the assessee to put forth their case diligently before the learned CIT(A), is that a case gets decided on merits

Sambasiva Rao Muppera, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 156/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.156/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Sambasiva Rao Muppera, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Dcdpm0224C Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

days. With regard to the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee made submissions before the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC and sought for condonation of delay by stating that the assessee is an agriculturist and being an illiterate and having no knowledge about the provisions of the Income ... NFAC 5 within the prescribed time period. However, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC rejected the assessee’s plea for condonation of delay by holding that there is no sufficient cause for belated filing of the appeal and accordingly dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order

Benazir Begaum, Ariyalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 2470/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2470/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Benazir Begaum, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 21,Jjubair Indane Gas Suppliers, Income Tax, G.H. Road, Circle 1(1) Ariyalur Trichy Ariyalur Dist. 621 704. [Pan: Apppb 6037G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A

appeal has to be filed on or before 14.09.2024 but was filed only on 20.09.2024. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating that the appeal papers were prepared and handed over to him for signature in the first week of September, 2024. Since he was away from ... Tribunal on 20.09.2024 with a delay of 06 days. When these facts were confronted to the ld.Addl. CIT-DR, she objected for condoning the delay. We find the cause as reasonable and hence, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that