← 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

The City Club, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer Ncw1(1), Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2007/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2007/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The City Club Ito बनाम/ 3, V.O.C Park Road, Non-Corporate Ward-1(1) Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabat-4005-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhyaarthi (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

consider the appeal on merit for want of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has pleaded for adjudication of the appeal on merits which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 2. Though the assessee ... 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

The Dean Foundation, Kilpauk vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chennai

In the result, the apeal of the asese is alowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1913/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaz∑Û∏ Y≤"Π Æ" ./ Ita No.1900/Chny/2024 """"""" """ /Assessment Years: 2020-21 The Dean Foundation, Commissioner Of Income No.59(Old No.73), Dean Foundation, Tax(Exemptions), Aspiran Garden Colony, Kilpauk. Chennai Chennai-10 [Pan: Aaatd3083C] Z∑Û∏ Y≤"Π Æ" ./ Ita No.1913/Chny/2024 """"""" """ /Assessment Years: 2020-21 The Dean Foundation, Commissioner Of Income No.59(Old No.73), Dean Foundation, Tax(Exemptions), Aspiran Garden Colony, Kilpauk. Chennai Chennai-10 [Pan: Aaatd3083C] (Y≤"Π"Æ" ("I∑Æ" /Appellant) /Respondent) Y≤"Π"Æ" Û" À∏ Æ" : Shri Anandha Kumar, C.A. / Apelant By "I∑Æ" Û" À∏ Æ" : Ms. Nayani Swapna, Cit /Respondent By Æ" ±ª"| Û" ≠"∏"Ü : 24 . 09 .202 4 / Date Of Hearing °"Ω¨" Û" ≠"∏"Ü : 0 9 . 10 .202 4 / Date Of Pronounc Ement Zø"º / O R D E R

Section 12Section 270A

imposing a penalty of Rs. 31,30,747/ - u/s 270A . It was argued that while doing so asese request for condonation of delay in filing the apeal was not favourably considered. The Ld . CIT(A) was reported to have, relied upo n the legal maxim of —Vigilantibus et non dormient ... Request was therefore made that the mater be set aside to th e file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re - adjudication after condoning the delay on merits of the case. It was asured that ful coperation would be tendered

The Dean Foundation, Kilpauk vs. Assessing Officer, Tamil Nadu

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

ITA 1900/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1900/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2020-21 The Dean Foundation, Commissioner Of Income No.59(Old No.73), Dean Foundation, Tax(Exemptions), Aspiran Garden Colony, Kilpauk. Chennai Chennai-10 [Pan: Aaatd3083C] आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1913/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2020-21 The Dean Foundation, Commissioner Of Income No.59(Old No.73), Dean Foundation, Tax(Exemptions), Aspiran Garden Colony, Kilpauk. Chennai Chennai-10 [Pan: Aaatd3083C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Anandha Kumar, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Nayani Swapna, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Anandha Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Nayani Swapna, CIT
Section 12Section 270A

imposing a penalty of Rs.31,30,747/- u/s 270A . It was argued that while doing so assesse 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 ... interests. 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

M/S . Sun Tv Network Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Circle 10(1), Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 674/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.674/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd Acit बनाम/ 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Non Corporate Circle -10(1), Mrc Nagar Main Road, Chennai. Vs. Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Aadcs-4885-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1111/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd बनाम/ Non Corporate Circle -10(1), 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar Main Road, Vs. Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Aadcs-4885-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

registry has noted delay of 53 days of delay in revenue’s appeal. The Ld. AR did not oppose condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay is condoned and we proceed for adjudication of appeals on merits. 2. Upon perusal of grounds of appeal, it is evident that the sole subject

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sun Tv Network Ltd, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1111/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.674/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd Acit बनाम/ 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Non Corporate Circle -10(1), Mrc Nagar Main Road, Chennai. Vs. Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Aadcs-4885-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1111/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd बनाम/ Non Corporate Circle -10(1), 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar Main Road, Vs. Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Aadcs-4885-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

registry has noted delay of 53 days of delay in revenue’s appeal. The Ld. AR did not oppose condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay is condoned and we proceed for adjudication of appeals on merits. 2. Upon perusal of grounds of appeal, it is evident that the sole subject

Ici India Management Staff Gratuity Fund, Haryana vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

ITA 1508/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1507/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ici India Limited Employees Gratuity Fund,……………………………………….Appellant Magnum Tower, 9Th Floor, Golf Course, Extension Road, Sector-58, Gurgaon-122011, Haryana [Pan:Aaati3857K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Circle-33, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 & I.T.A. No. 1508/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ici India Management Staff Gratuity Fund,……………………………………….Appellant Magnum Tower, 9Th Floor, Golf Course, Extension Road, Sector-58, Gurgaon-122011, Haryana [Pan:Aaati4659R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Circle-33, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Registry has pointed out that ITA No. 1508/KOL/2024 is time barred by 249 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit of Ms. Veena Tanwar, daughter of Shri O.P. Tandon, who is working with Akzo Nobel India Limited. The main reason assigned ... also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

Ici India Limited Employees Gratuity Fund, Haryana vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

ITA 1507/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1507/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ici India Limited Employees Gratuity Fund,……………………………………….Appellant Magnum Tower, 9Th Floor, Golf Course, Extension Road, Sector-58, Gurgaon-122011, Haryana [Pan:Aaati3857K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Circle-33, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 & I.T.A. No. 1508/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ici India Management Staff Gratuity Fund,……………………………………….Appellant Magnum Tower, 9Th Floor, Golf Course, Extension Road, Sector-58, Gurgaon-122011, Haryana [Pan:Aaati4659R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Circle-33, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Registry has pointed out that ITA No. 1508/KOL/2024 is time barred by 249 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit of Ms. Veena Tanwar, daughter of Shri O.P. Tandon, who is working with Akzo Nobel India Limited. The main reason assigned ... also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction