← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. A.P.Metacil P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2241/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Central Circle 28, Vs. M/S. A.P. Metacil Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 5/1, Saraswati Road, Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan: Aafca2094L) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.60/Del/2023 (In Ita No.2241/Del/2018) (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. A.P. Metacil Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 28, 5/1, Saraswati Road, New Delhi. Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan: Aajfa1810F) (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2024 Date Of Order : 22.10.2024 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 153C

filing the cross objection of approximately 5 years before the ITAT and in this regard, he has filed the submissions and application for condonation of delay giving the reasons for the delay in filing the same and the relevant portion of the condonation of delay application is reproduced below ... case as explained in the condonation application. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the application of condonation of delay particularly for substantial delay of 5 years. 5. Considered the submissions of both the parties and material placed on record. After going through the explanation

Rajvidyalaya Educational Trust, Kuttalam vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trichy

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2049/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Rajvidyalaya Educational Trust Ito बनाम/ 23, Uthira North Car Street, Exemptions Ward, Vs. Kuttalam-609 801. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabtr-8546-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

certain additions u/s.69A & 69C of the Act on best judgment basis. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 252 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is a charitable trust ... could not establish reasonable cause for filing of first appeal with a delay, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we condone the delay before Ld. CIT(A) subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from

Veena Anand, Bangalore vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Bengaluru., Bmtc Building, Near Khb Games Village, Koramangala

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

ITA 1664/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Veena Anand Acit, Circle 6(3)(1) No. 148, 6Th Main Bmtc Building Bagalur Cross, Yelahanka Vs. Koramangala Bengaluru 560063 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Ahipv3465F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jeevan, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 14.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Uploading The Order Of Assessing Officer, In The Manner In Which He Did. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Providing Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant To Put Forth The Submissions Of The Appellant. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Additions Of Rs. 1,40,22,995/- Being Difference Of Turnover As Declared In Vat Returns & Turn Over As Per Financials.

For Appellant: Shri Jeevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

There is a delay of 132 days in filing the appeal before us and the assessee filed a petition with an affidavit for condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause ... Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee, an individual, filed the return of income