← 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

Nalla Pavana, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-2, Warangal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 713/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.708/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Nalla Sai Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward – 2 Pan:Admpn5346B Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.713/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Nalla Pavana Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward – 2 Pan:Admpn5345C Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, Sr. Ar & Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 121/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan

delay of 298 days in filing appeal by the Wife, Smt. Nalla Pavana in ITA No.713/Hyd/2024. Both the assessees have filed applications for condonation of delay which are also supported by the affidavits by the respective assessees. The learned AR of the assessees submitted that both the husband & wife ... assessee and therefore, the inordinate delay in filing the appeal has not been explained with sufficient cause. Thus, he has opposed to the condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Page 3 of 10 ITA Nos 708 and 713 of 2024 Nalla Sai Reddy and Nalla Pavana

Nalla Sai Reddy, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-2, Warangal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.708/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Nalla Sai Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward – 2 Pan:Admpn5346B Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.713/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Nalla Pavana Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward – 2 Pan:Admpn5345C Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, Sr. Ar & Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 121/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan

delay of 298 days in filing appeal by the Wife, Smt. Nalla Pavana in ITA No.713/Hyd/2024. Both the assessees have filed applications for condonation of delay which are also supported by the affidavits by the respective assessees. The learned AR of the assessees submitted that both the husband & wife ... assessee and therefore, the inordinate delay in filing the appeal has not been explained with sufficient cause. Thus, he has opposed to the condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Page 3 of 10 ITA Nos 708 and 713 of 2024 Nalla Sai Reddy and Nalla Pavana

Shreenath Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2) Old Ward-2(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1651/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2014-15 Shreenath Corporation Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) C/O. Ms Chhajed & Co., Ca Ahmedabad. “Kamal Shanti”, Nr. Sardar Patel Statute Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Acffs 4232 D Assessee By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 6.8.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) ,Dismissing Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act ,As Non-Maintainable.

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

maintainable. 3. The ld.CIT(A), we find has dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable by not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before it. The delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is noted to be to the tune of one year and eight ... order of the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has not been given any opportunity of hearing by the ld.CIT(A) while not condoning the delay. The Ld.CIT(A) has considered merely the submissions filed by the assessee ,along with the appeal, giving reasons for the delay and passedorder refusing