← 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

Rajiv College of Excellence Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ACIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 1433/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1433/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Assistant Commissioner Of Rajiv College Of Excellence V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Educational Trust, Chennai – 600 034. 5/516B, Sakthisai Ram Street, Ganapathy Nagar, Alapakkam, Chennai – 600 116. [Pan:Aabtr-0607-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. M.S. Deeptha, JCIT
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143Section 143(1)

assessee is free to file the said Form 10B online and/or approach the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad after filing Form 10B electronically and to condone the delay in accordance with the delegated powers vested u/s. 119(2) (b) of the Act. Such a power u/s. 119(2)(b) is not vested ... circumstances of the case, therefore the same is also rejected, " The appellant should pursue the case concerned before the CIT(Exemption) for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b). Accordingly, the appellate authority does not have the rights for passing orders as, the competent authority for condoning the delay

Vimal Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1685/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1685/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Vimal Kumar Ito बनाम/ 81-N, Arihant Apartments Non-Corporate Ward-19(6), Thambiah Reddy Road Chennai. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acjpv-6077-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta (Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12-05-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2016. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.296.53 Lacs Which Represent Advances Received By The Assessee Towards Sale Of Certain Flats. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider The Appeal On Merit For Want

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

received by the assessee towards sale of certain flats. The Ld. CIT(A) did not 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. 2. The registry has noted delay of 329 days ... been submitted that the impugned order was not received since it was sent on another email id. Considering the same, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The Ld. AR has submitted that earlier a manual appeal was filed on 09-05-2016 which

Raj Mani Yadav, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 382/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Mani Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer 3(3) D-124, Harihar Nagar Lucknow Indira Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Bcopr2293D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.10.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Person, E-Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 1.8.2017, Declaring A Total Taxable Income Of Rs.2,87,850/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment, Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19,45,850/- By Making Addition Under Section 69A Read With Section 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) At Rs.16,58,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposited During Demonetization. 3. Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Under Section 246A Of The Act Before The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow-1 On 18.12.2019. Later On, The Appeal Migrated To Nfac, Who Vide Its

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 246ASection 69A

belated and there is a delay of 159 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has submitted a petition for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit citing the reason for delay as ‘non-service of the impugned order due to mention of wrong e-mail ... Looking into the averment made in the Affidavit and also considering no objection of the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative to condonation of delay, I condone the delay of 159 days and admit the appeal. 8. Since the order passed by NFAC was an ex-parte order, the ld. Senior