← 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

Chandan Hassanand Lokwani, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1358/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Chandan Hassanand Lokwani, V The Assistant 2 Jawahar Market, Nashik Road, S Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 422101. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan : Abcpl7072N Nashik. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 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 18.05.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause & The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice. 2) The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That In This Case, The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Was Made By The A.O. Towards Non Deduction Of Tds On Interest Paid To Three Nbfc In Spite Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Furnished Ca Certificate In Form 26A To Prove That The Payees Had Offered The Interest To Tax & Paid Taxes Thereon & Hence, The Said Addition Resulted Into Double Taxation Of The Same Income & Therefore, The Impugned Delay Of 108 Days In Filing Appeal Ought To Have Been Condoned In View Of The Ratio Laid Down By Hon'Ble Madras High Court In Case Of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. V. Cit [248 Itr 681].

Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 40

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the said delay was due to reasonable cause and the said delay ought ... Supreme Court held that there is no hard and fast rule, which can be laid down while considering an application for condonation of delay. It was further held that Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. The Tribunal, while concurring with the view taken by the CIT(A), held that

Angadala Ramakrishna, Veleru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

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

ITA 242/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.242/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramakrishna Angadala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7-121/B, Veeravalli, Bapulapadu, Ward-1, Krishna District-521110, Gudivada. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Brwpa7639F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit are extracted herein below for reference: “……. I am an agriculturist and have no education ... digital communication. I am an agriculturist and having no education. Hence, I pray the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam to condone the delay and admit the appeal.” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond

Rambabu Angadala, Gudivada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

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

ITA 241/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rambabu Angadala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7-12/C, Veleru, Veeravalli Ward-1, Bapulapadu, Krishna-521110, Gudivada. Andhra Pradesh-521110. Pan: Brwpa7640C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit are extracted herein below for reference: “……. I am an agriculturist and have no education ... digital communication. I am an agriculturist and having no education. Hence, I pray the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam to condone the delay and admit the appeal.” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond

Mappillai Transport Company, Salem vs. DCIT, CC-(1), Salem

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

ITA 2123/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2123/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mappillai Transport Company, Deputy Commissioner Of 193 Suramangalam Main Road, V. Income Tax, Salem – 636 009. Circle 1(1), [Pan: Aalfm-6103H] Salem. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

outset, we find that there is a delay of 26 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which no petition for condonation of delay has been filed. In the interests of justice :-2-: ITA. No: 2123/Chny/2024 and considering the short delay, we condone delay in filing of appeal ... appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC with a delay. :-3-: ITA. No: 2123/Chny/2024 4. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay by passing the order dated 15.05.2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 5. The ld.AR

ITO, Corporate Ward1, Coimbatore vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1734/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA & Mr.ShreyanshFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

days in ITA No.1730 have been noted. The revenue has filed a request for condonation of delay. It is the case of the revenue that the delay was purely unintentional and caused on account of pre- occupation with time barring work as well as some unforeseen technical glitches ... electronic platforms. The Ld. AR did not oppose the condonation of delay. We are satisfied with the justification given by the ITA Nos.1717, 1730, 1733 & 1734/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: revenue and condoning the delay we proceed for adjudication of the appeals. 3.0 The only issue raised by the Revenue vide appeals bearing

ITO, Corporate Ward1, Coimbatore vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1733/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA & Mr.ShreyanshFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

days in ITA No.1730 have been noted. The revenue has filed a request for condonation of delay. It is the case of the revenue that the delay was purely unintentional and caused on account of pre- occupation with time barring work as well as some unforeseen technical glitches ... electronic platforms. The Ld. AR did not oppose the condonation of delay. We are satisfied with the justification given by the ITA Nos.1717, 1730, 1733 & 1734/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: revenue and condoning the delay we proceed for adjudication of the appeals. 3.0 The only issue raised by the Revenue vide appeals bearing

ITO, Corporateward1, Coimbatore vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1730/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA & Mr.ShreyanshFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

days in ITA No.1730 have been noted. The revenue has filed a request for condonation of delay. It is the case of the revenue that the delay was purely unintentional and caused on account of pre- occupation with time barring work as well as some unforeseen technical glitches ... electronic platforms. The Ld. AR did not oppose the condonation of delay. We are satisfied with the justification given by the ITA Nos.1717, 1730, 1733 & 1734/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: revenue and condoning the delay we proceed for adjudication of the appeals. 3.0 The only issue raised by the Revenue vide appeals bearing

ITO, Corporate Ward1, Coimbatore vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1717/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA & Mr.ShreyanshFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

days in ITA No.1730 have been noted. The revenue has filed a request for condonation of delay. It is the case of the revenue that the delay was purely unintentional and caused on account of pre- occupation with time barring work as well as some unforeseen technical glitches ... electronic platforms. The Ld. AR did not oppose the condonation of delay. We are satisfied with the justification given by the ITA Nos.1717, 1730, 1733 & 1734/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: revenue and condoning the delay we proceed for adjudication of the appeals. 3.0 The only issue raised by the Revenue vide appeals bearing

Gc 2351 Manampathy Paccs, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kancheepuram

In the result grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1462/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1462/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Gc2351 Manampathy Primary Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Coop Credit Society, Vs. Ward-1, Manampathy Village & Post, Kanchipuram Chengalpet Taluk, Chennai Kanchipuram, Tn-603105. [Pan: Aabag2597A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate For B.Sakthivel, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053587740(1) Dated 07.06.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2019- 20. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 07.06.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate for B.Sakthivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80P

that the same is pending conclusion. It was submitted that the assesse has fair chances of succeeding before the said authority qua condonation of delay in its filing of return. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A) but acknowledged the CB DT circular supra ... condone delay in cases confirming to certain conditions. It is an admitted fact on record that the assesse has filed a petition for condonation of delay before the jurisdictional CCIT and the same was reported to be pending. Accordingly, we are of the view that in the interest of justice

Akshya Infrastructure Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Puducherry

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

ITA 1372/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1372/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Akshya Infrastructure Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 57/2B, Sai Subhodhaya Apartment Ward 1, Ecr Road, Puducherry. Tiruvanmayur, Chennai 600 041. [Pan: Aahca 6944K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, IRS, CIT
Section 144

appeal has to be filed on or before 24.05.2019 but was filed only on 30.01.2023 The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal wherein the assessee has given the reasons for delay as under: - ‘’The appeal against the impugned order is filed belatedly ... stated herein before / preceding paragraph. In such circumstances, the mistake of the consultant would constitute reasonable cause for accepting the plea for condoning the delay of 1649 days for adjudicating the issues on merits. In fact, the additions made in the ex- parte assessment order are completely as well