← 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

Ed-1330 Kurumandumedu Mpcs Ltd, Gobichettypalayam vs. DCIT Circle 1, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2025/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2024 & 2025/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Ed-1330 Karumandurmedu Mpcs Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 151, Kaliamman Nagar, Income Tax, Karumandurmedu, Gobichettipalayam, Circle 1, Erode. Tamil Nadu 638 457. [Pan:Aaaae1032H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Senthil Kumar, Advocate, Er. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Saujanya Ranjan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Orders Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 21-22. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear Both The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumar, Advocate, ErFor Respondent: Mr. Saujanya Ranjan, JCIT
Section 80P(2)(d)

find this appeal was filed with a delay of 4 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating reasons for the said delay. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the affidavit, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really ... prevented in filing the appeal in time and accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal, amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance partly

Ed-1330 Kurumandumedu Mpcs Ltd, Gobichettypalayam vs. DCIT Cirle 1, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2024/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2024 & 2025/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Ed-1330 Karumandurmedu Mpcs Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 151, Kaliamman Nagar, Income Tax, Karumandurmedu, Gobichettipalayam, Circle 1, Erode. Tamil Nadu 638 457. [Pan:Aaaae1032H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Senthil Kumar, Advocate, Er. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Saujanya Ranjan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Orders Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 21-22. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear Both The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumar, Advocate, ErFor Respondent: Mr. Saujanya Ranjan, JCIT
Section 80P(2)(d)

find this appeal was filed with a delay of 4 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating reasons for the said delay. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the affidavit, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really ... prevented in filing the appeal in time and accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal, amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance partly