← 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

Kondasamy Anand Kumar, Coimbatore vs. The Assessing Authority, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1649/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1649/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Kondasamy Anand Kumar Income Tax Officer, No.36, B.R.Nagar, Singanallur, Non-Corporate Ward-1(4) Coimbatore-641005 Coimbatore. [Pan: Addpa0399J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Bhoopathi, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250

against return income of Rs.1,11,07,510/-. It was argued that while doing so assesse’s request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was not favourably considered. The Ld. CIT(A) was reported to have, relied upon the legal maxim of “Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt ... time. Request was therefore made that the matter be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after condoning the delay on merits of the case. It was assured that full cooperation would be tendered

Villupuram Municipal Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Villupuram vs. CIT(A), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1594/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2021-22 Villupuram Municipal Employees Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society, Che-W-(181)(11), Muncipal Office, Chennai. Villupuram, Tamil Nadu-605602. [Pan: Aaaav3589J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Bhoopathi, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

made u/s 143(1) vide order dated 19.10.2022. It was argued that while doing so assesse’s request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was not favourably considered. The Ld. CIT(A) was reported to have, relied upon the legal maxim of “Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt ... folder. Request was therefore made that the matter be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re- adjudication after condoning the delay on merits of the case. It was assured that full cooperation would be tendered

The DCIT, Circle (International Taxation), Chandigarh vs. Sh. Manjeet Singh, Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed whereas, Cross

ITA 512/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs. Shri Manjeet Singh, बनाम Circle (International S/O Shri Harbir Singh Taxation), # 1460, Ward Number-8, Chandigarh Gahlewal, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 13/Chd/2022 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Manjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम S/O Shri Harbir Singh Circle (International # 1460, Ward Number-8, Taxation ), Gahlewal, Chandigarh Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

Singh, Ludhiana 5 512-Chd-2022 & C.O.13-Chd-2022 Shri Manjeet Singh, Ludhiana 6 5. A request has been made by the ld. Counsel to condone the delay of 57 days in filing the Cross Objections. 6. We have considered the facts and reasoning furnished by the Assessee in his aforesaid letter ... Further, there is a letter dated 14.07.2017, addressed to the Hon'ble Bench in the appeal for the A.Y 2011-2012, asking for condonation of delay and in that application also, it has been stated, that the assessee is 'Non Resident' and permanently settled in USA and is having American

Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin, Plot vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(2), Pratayashkar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1059/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1059/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Momin Ward-3(2)(2) V/S. 524A, Opp. Adarsh Hospital Ahmedabad Nr. Telav Shela Cross Road At Telav, Sanand 382 110 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Apepm 7307 M अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.12.2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Primary Grievance Of The Assessee Pertains To The Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Made By The Assessing Officer As Per His Order Dated 09/12/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

hearing notice, the assessee sought new legal representation and subsequently filed the appeal. The Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to the condonation of delay. In view of the reasons advanced by the assessee and in the interest of natural justice, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate