← 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

Krishnan Rajini, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 2400/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2400/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Krishnan Rajini, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.3/295, Thinnhali, Ward 1, Balasamudiram, Dharmapuri. Vaguthapatty, Pr Patty, Dharmapuri 635 302. [Pan: Aszpr 9713Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Velpandiar, Advocate For Shri G. Bhaskar, Advocate. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Velpandiar, Advocate for Shri G. Bhaskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271F

appeal has to be filed on or before 09.03.2024 but was filed only on 13.09.2024. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating that he came to know about the order of the ld. CIT(A) dismissing his appeal when his Jurisdictional ld. Assessing Officer contacted him regarding ... arrears. When these facts were confronted to 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. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual did not file his return of income

Amalendu Kumar Modak, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1367/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 151ASection 250

Retail Turnover of substantial amount, duly reflected in the Audited Books and Records) .” 3. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the condonation of delay was denied by the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) has mentioned that there was delay of 212 days for which a deficiency ... letter was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed written submission for the delay along with an affidavit. A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is at page no.13 and 14 of the appellate order and is reproduced as under:- “RE: AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK PAN : AEKPM9399G

S T Co-Operative Credit Society, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2136/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2136/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 S T Co-Operative Credit V The Income Tax Officer, Society, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Swargate S T Depo, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Swargate Bus Stand, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabas6856L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.08.2024 For A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause As Explained In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Filed Before Cit(A) & Therefore, The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & The Appeal Should Have Been Adjudicated On Merits. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Deduction U/S 80P Was Allowable In Respect Of Interest Earned From Deposits Made By Cooperative Banks As Consistently Held By Honorable

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by refusing to condone the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the said delay was due to reasonable cause as explained in the application for condonation ... consistently held by Honorable ITAT, Pune and the considerations of merits, should not have been altogether ignored, while adjudicating the aspect of condonation of delay in filing appeal and hence, the appeal ought to have been allowed after condoning the delay 3. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend