← 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

Manohars Catering, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1393/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Manohars Catering, Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax & / Or The Partners/ Circle-1, Bangalore Legal Representatives Of (Present Jurisdiction-Income Tax The Partners Of Manohars Officer-Ward7(2)(3), Bangalore) Catering As Stipulated U/S V. 189(1), 189(3) & 189(4) Of The 1961 Act Number 666, Indiranagar 1St Stage Bengaluru-560038 Karnataka Pan:Aalfm1212B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Raghvendra, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Raghvendra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 37Section 40

Further, the ld. CIT(A) stated in its communication dated 18.06.2018 to assessee that it may file fresh appeal with a request for condonation of delay. The said letter dated 18.06.2018 issued by ld. CIT(A) is reproduced , as hereunder:- “Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Bengaluru ... vide letter date 18.06.2018 had instructed to the assessee that it may file fresh appeal with a request for condonation of delay. The assessee has filed an affidavit dated 04.09.2024 which is placed on record in file, in which the aforestated facts are enumerated in brief. The authorities have dismissed

Sanjeev Mehta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 353/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicialmember Sa No.49/Del./2024 (In Ita No.353/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) & Sanjeev Mehta Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), G-1, Vishwa Apartment, New Delhi. 3, Shankaracharya Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi – 110 054. (Pan: Aaapm5622L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Order : 13.09.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)’)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2 Since We Have Disposed Off The Appeal In The Instant Case By This Order, The Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Has Become Infructuous, Hence Dismissed.

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 253(5)Section 5

dated 30.01.2024 u/s. 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The contents of the same are reproduced as under:- “APPLICATION UIS 253(5) OF THE INCOME ... SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL 1. That the appellant / applicant (hereinafter referred to as "assessee") has filed the captioned appeal against the order-dated 20.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to the impugned order) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

Prabakaran Darwin, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 1706/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1706/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prabakaran Darwin, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Panchayat Shopping Non Corporate Ward – 22(1), Complex, Velachery Main Road, Room No. 1, Tambaram (Business Range), 1St & 2Nd Floor, Ramakrishna Kamarajapuram, Chennai 600 073. Street, West Tambaram, [Pan: Amypd6679C] Chennai 600 045. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 247 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For The Said Delay. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144

assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 247 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating reasons for the said delay. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the 2 I.T.A. No.1706/Chny/24 affidavit, we find that ... 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. 3. The ld. AR Shri Y. Shridhar, F.C.A. filed an adjournment application seeking time to collect details from the assessee

Veerapandian Vkp, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 4, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 1412/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1412/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Veerapandian Vkp Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O B. Anand & Associates, No. 5, Ward – 4, Nellai Citi Centre, 2Nd Floor, Rama Street, Tiruchendur Road, Rahamath Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Nagar, Tirunelveli 627 011. [Pan: Aflpv9610D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 302 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We Find

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 148

assessment year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 302 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find 2 I.T.A. No.1412/Chny/24 the reasons stated ... deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay of 605 days subject to the payment of ₹.25,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from