← 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

Mseb Employee Co Operative Credit Society Ltd Jalna, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1 Jalna, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1684/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1684/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mseb Employee Co- Vs The Income Tax Officer, Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ward-1, Jalna. 1 Shanta Govind Apartment, Gandhi Chaman, Jalna – 431213. Pan: Aaaam6294R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda – Ar (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Harshad S.Aaradhi– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 04.06.2024 For The A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine Refusing Mseb Employee Co Operative Society Ltd., Jalna [A]

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

appeal : “1. The Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine refusing MSEB Employee Co Operative Society Ltd., Jalna [A] to condone the delay in filing the appeal even when assessee substantiated sufficient cause for the delay. It is prayed that the appellate order may please ... aside with suitable direction to the Id. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after considering the submissions made by the assessee as per the provisions of section 250(6) of Income Tax Act. 2. The Id. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without

Satnam Education and Rural Welfare Society, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Mohali

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 318/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Satnam Education & Rural Vs. The Ito, Welfare Society, बनाम Ward 6 (1)M Village Gulabgarh, Mohali Mahiwal Road, Derabassi Punjab 140306 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaqts8072G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Virtual Hearintg ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10Section 139(4)Section 250

made an addition to the entire income of the Assessee. The ld. CIT(A) in his order has clearly mentioned that since the condonation of delay is not granted, therefore, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits of the case and accordingly he has dismissed the appeal ... Assessee and the delay on the part of the CIT (E) in passing order u/s 10(23C) of the Act. Accordingly, we condone the delay and remand this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit. 8. Accordingly, in view of the above

Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1096/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 68

appellant craves to leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal or before the hearing of appeal.” On Condonation of delay: 4. It was observed that there was delay of 155 days in filing the appeals before us. The assessee submitted an affidavit stating that ... consideration were argumentative and not clearly explaining the delay, therefore, the assessee was asked to re-submit the affidavits with proper application of condonation of delay. The assessee resubmitted the affidavits giving the reasons as mentioned below: “3. That I did not have any legal consultant on Immediate basis

Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1095/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 68

appellant craves to leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal or before the hearing of appeal.” On Condonation of delay: 4. It was observed that there was delay of 155 days in filing the appeals before us. The assessee submitted an affidavit stating that ... consideration were argumentative and not clearly explaining the delay, therefore, the assessee was asked to re-submit the affidavits with proper application of condonation of delay. The assessee resubmitted the affidavits giving the reasons as mentioned below: “3. That I did not have any legal consultant on Immediate basis

Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift Societ Limited, Bapatla vs. Income-Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Bapatla

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

ITA 321/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 321/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Thrift Society Limited, Ward-1, Bapatla. Bapatla. Pan: Aaaab6442N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69A

days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein below for reference: “7. That the chief functionary of the society ... find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated