← 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

Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Industries, Polamuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 256/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Industries, Ward-1, 3-81, Toorpu Peta, Polamuru, Kakinada. Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Acsfs5787Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

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: “…… …….. Our auditor Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, Advocate prepared ... that the assessee was prevented by 3 a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated

Pavan Kranti Nadiminti, Pm Palem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 303/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 303/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pavan Kranti Nadiminti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(4), Pan: Agxpn5603K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Muralidhar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri M. Muralidhar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein below for reference: “1. That I would like to request for condonation of delay of 114 days. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has sent notices 3 times on 22.01.2021, 31.05.2023 and 15.06.2023 respectively. The Ist notice was duly served ... find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 114 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated

Sri Nidhi Finance, Salem vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Salem

ITA 1741/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1741/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Nidhi Finance, 5, Jayalakshmi Complex, Near Joyallukas, Opp. To New Bus Stand, Salem 636 004, Tamil Nadu [Pan: Absfs5037N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Salem. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri S.R. Srikrishna, Ca (Virtual) Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 10.09.2024 13.09.2024 आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 68

find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 658 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit explaining the reasons for condonation of delay. 3. The Id. AR Shri S.R. Srikrishna, CA drew our attention to para 6 to 13 and argued the assessee was really prevented due to reasons ... stated in para 6 to 13 and prayed to condone the delay. 4. The Id. DR Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT, vehemently opposed the submissions of the Id. AR. She argued that the reasons explained by the assessee are general in nature and no sufficient cause was explained in filing

Sukumar Dhanapal, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1724/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1724/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukumar Dhanapal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 121/47, Singanna Chetty Street, Non-Corporate Ward 9(1), Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Atnpd5850F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 59 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition In The Form Of Notarized Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The 2

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 68

find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 59 days. The assessee filed petition in the form of notarized affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the 2 I.T.A

Sunrise Infrastructure Projects Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp.Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1540/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1540/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sunrise Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (India) Ltd., 607-608, K.P. Platina, Income Tax, Race Course Circle, Corporate Circle - 6(2), Vadodara 390 007, Gujarat. Chennai. [Pan: Aamcs2906C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Filed Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

available on record. 3. We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 4 days, though the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, but not supported by any affidavit. The Registry of ITAT, Chennai Bench issued notices dated 07.05.2024, 29.05.2024 and 02.07.2024. All the said notices returned