← 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

Anil Tukaram Waghmare, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Panvel Circle, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 534/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalanil Tukaram Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Waghmare, Aayakar Bhavan, D 702, Plot No.79/80, Opp Khanda Colony, Green Heritage, New Panvel, Sector 20, Kharghar Navi Mumbai-410206. Navi Mumbai-410210. Pan/Gir No. Aaspw9600J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Dharan Gandhi.Ar Revenue By Shri.Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 144 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Brought To The Knowledge Of The Bench, That There Is A Delay Of 43 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.

Section 133(6)Section 144

delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal

Sri Lakshminarayan Educational Trust, Dharmapuri vs. ACIT(Exemptions), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1435/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1435/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sri Lakshminarayan Assistant Commissioner Of Educational Trust, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), 14/1, Bye Pass Road Coimbatore. Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri – 636 701. [Pan: Aahts-0652-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA
Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)

16/3/2019. Later the Assessee filed corrected form 10B on 17/3/2020 along with the petition U/s.119 of the Act, before the Jurisdictional CIT for condonation of delay in filing the audit report in Form 10B. Further, aggrieved by the intimation U/s.143(1) issued by the CPC, Bangalore, the assessee preferred ... pending before Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax FOR DISPOSAL. 6.3 Further, Section 119 empowers the Board to issue orders and guidelines regarding the condonation of delay in compliance with any provision of the Act. Section 119(2) reads as follows: Section 119(2) (a) (b) the Board