← 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

Revenue Bar Association, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1746/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1746/Chny/2024 Revenue Bar Association, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax New No.115, First Floor, Exemptions, Luz Church Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Aaatr 3370G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

bench is neither willful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant entity and hence I plead for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by 577 days for interfering with the ex-parte impugned order passed by the CIT(Exemptions), Chennai dated ... Before us, assessee demonstrated ‘sufficient cause’ in delay in filing the appeal which could not be termed as intentional or deliberate. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case leading to this appeal are as under: The applicant filed an online application

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

same, the Appellant had filed an application dated January 18, 2021, before the Hon'ble Board under section 119 of the Act for condonation of delay. During the pendency of disposal of the condonation application by the Hon'ble Board, the Appellant was served a notice under section ... Authorised Representative of the assessee filed a chart showing sequence of events which are reproduced hereunder:- Sl.no Date Event Remarks I. Condonation of delay proceedings before CBDT 1 18- Jan 21 Appellant filed petition for condonation of delay in filing return of income with CBDT 2 05- Jul 23 CBDT

The Cauvery Power Scheme Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Shivanasamudram (Bluf), Shivanasamudram(Bluf) vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandya

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

ITA 975/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kptcl & Escoms Employees Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ward – 1, Shivanasamudram (Bluf), Mandya. Malavalli Tq. Mandya – 571 430. Pan : Aalat 1943 P Erstwhile M/S. The Cauvery Power Scheme Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Shivanasamudram (Bluf) Malavalli Tq, Mandya Dist, Mandya – 571 430. Pan : Aaatt 2440 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shankar Gowda, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Shankar Gowda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

outset, I notice that Addl/JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before Page 2 of 5 him. Copy of the condonation application and affidavit filed before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is placed ... reason for the delay was due to the election code of conduct and ill health of the staff. The CIT(A) has not condoned the delay by stating that there is no reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 3. Aggrieved