← 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

Ramakrishnan Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1781/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1781/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Shri Ramakrishnan Senthil The Deputy Commissioner Kumar, Vs. Of Income Tax, New No.80, I Avenue, Non-Corporate Circle 19(1), Ashok Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Ammps 5348D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Muarli, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1065644230(1) Dated 14.06.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 19(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 26.03.2022. 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The First Issue Raised By Way Of Ground Nos.2 To 4 Regarding Non- Condonation Of Delay By Cit(A)-Nfac. He Referred To The Following Grounds:- Non-Condonation Of Delay By Cit(A):

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Muarli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

outset, the ld.AR for the assessee drew our attention to the first issue raised by way of Ground Nos.2 to 4 regarding non- condonation of delay by CIT(A)-NFAC. He referred to the following grounds:- Non-Condonation of Delay by CIT(A): 2. The Learned CIT(A) failed ... condone the delay placing reliance on a totally different order. 3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Form 35 specifically seeks the reasons for condonation of delay and the same has been duly prepared. 4. The Learned CIT(A) failed to examine the matter on merits

Palanisamy Ragunathan, Salem vs. DCIT, Cirlce 1, (1), Salem

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

ITA 151/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.151/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 Mr. Palanisamy Ragunathan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 2, A.A. Road, Near Santhi Theatre, Income Tax, Dhadubaikuttai, Salem 636 001. Circle 1(1), [Pan: Aaypr3825L] Salem. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of One Day. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The Reasons

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 69A

year 2011-12. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of one day. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both

Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen, Chennai vs. Addl/JCIT A-3, Chennai

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

ITA 1198/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1198/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen, Vs. The Acit/Dy. Commissioner Of No. 30, Aadijan Street, Income Tax, Mandaveli 600 028, Chennai. Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai. [Pan: Ahcpn5701A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Subramaniam, C.A. & Ms. Sailas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) /Addl/Jcit (A)-3, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of Six Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Subramaniam, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 54Section 54F

year 2019-20. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of six days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both