← 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

Indian Public School Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1521/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1521/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Public School Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit/Income Tax Officer, 70, Dr. Alagappa Chettiar Road, Corporate Circle 1, Tatabad, Coimbatore 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabci6331A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Surat For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 16 Days. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay As Well As Duly Notarized Affidavit Stating Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Affidavit & Upon Hearing The Ld. Dr, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

appeal is filed with a delay of 16 days. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay as well as duly notarized affidavit stating reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the affidavit

Shri. Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Harihar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 721/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyshri Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara The Income Tax Officer Sangha Niyamitha Ward 1 Near Renuka Mandira Temple Vs. Devangere. Harihar – 577 601. Pan – Aapas0548F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Vide Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/ 250/2022-23/ 1044443368(1) Dated 03.08.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. That The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Providing A 2 Shri Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara Sangh Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard By Sending The Appeal Hearing Communication Manually As Part Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Entire Appeal Faceless Scheme Is Newly Introduced & Not All The Assessees Are Well Aware Of It & Can Acknowledge The Hearing Notices Sent Through Emails.

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 250Section 68

There was a delay of 565 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay stating that Mr. Sandeep G. finance Head of the Appellant Co-operative Society was not aware of the fact that the order was passed ... Mr.Sandeep G is also filed narrating the above facts. Accordingly the AR of the assessee prayed 3 Shri Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara Sangh for condoning the delay in filing the appeal by 565 days in the interest of justice. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record

The Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporationemployees Cooperative Thrift &Credit Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Non Coporate Ward-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 775/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.775/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporation Employees Cooperative Non Corporate Ward 9(1), Thrift & Credit Society, Ltd., 2, Tourism Chennai. Building, Walajah Road, Off Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. [Pan: Aaabt2656F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 80P

CBDT and submits that the CBDT has directed all the CCsIT/DGsIT, shall admit all the pending as well as new applications for condonation of delay in furnishing return of income claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act. Further, the ld. AR drew out attention to the order ... decide after the decision of CBDT on condonation petition. In the present case, the application of the assessee dated 09.12.2021 seeking condonation of delay is pending before the ld. PCCIT, Tamil Nadu. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh