← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Pujita Merchandise Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1293/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1293/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata………………………..………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Pujita Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.…..….........…………..…........……...…..…..Respondent 37E, Block-B, New Alipore, Kolkata – 700053. [Pan: Aadcp7771M] Appearances By: Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 07, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record, Wherein, The Reasons For The Delay Have Duly Been Mentioned. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Find Sufficient Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate Upon The Matter. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year In Question On 27.09.2012 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.11,100/-. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & In Response To

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

outset, we note that there is a delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal for which application for condonation of delay is placed on record, wherein, the reasons for the delay have duly been mentioned. Considering the averments made in the application, we find sufficient cause ... delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate upon the matter. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the assessment year in question on 27.09.2012 reporting a total income of Rs.11,100/-. Thereafter