← 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, New Delhi vs. M/S Lvmh Watch & Jewelery India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2748/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N M/S. Lvmh Watch & Vs. Dcit, Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(1), International Trade New Delhi Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Acit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Assessee By : Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, Adv Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ar Shri Sahil Malhotra, Ar Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 91(4)

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such

Lvmh Watch & Jewellery Indi (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4022/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N M/S. Lvmh Watch & Vs. Dcit, Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(1), International Trade New Delhi Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Acit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Assessee By : Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, Adv Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ar Shri Sahil Malhotra, Ar Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 91(4)

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3643/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N M/S. Lvmh Watch & Vs. Dcit, Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(1), International Trade New Delhi Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Acit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Assessee By : Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, Adv Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ar Shri Sahil Malhotra, Ar Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 91(4)

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Triumph International (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1657/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1657/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 & C.O No.64/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No.1657/Chny/2024] The Deputy Commissioner Triumph International Of Income Tax, Vs. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Ward 3(1), 240-B, Sengundram Village, Chennai – 600 034. Singaperumal Koil, Kanchipuram – 603 204. Pan: Aabct 5775D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

this office.” 2.1 Since there is a delay of 27 days and assessee has not objected to the same, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) allowing segmental approach ... outset, it is noticed that this cross objection is barred by limitation by 47 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition for condoning the delay by stating the following reason:- “3.I state that the aforesaid delay in filing the cross objection is as mentioned as under:- 4. I state