← 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

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 970/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

assessee by passing three separate orders even dated 23/02/2024, by rejecting the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee for condoning the delay filing the appeals, stating that the appellant is not having ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing the aforesaid appeals. :-4-: ITA. Nos: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 ... NFAC, Delhi, has erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeals by exparte orders, by not considering the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeals and without giving any opportunity to the assessee on merits of the case, is erroneous in law. 8. Further

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 969/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

assessee by passing three separate orders even dated 23/02/2024, by rejecting the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee for condoning the delay filing the appeals, stating that the appellant is not having ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing the aforesaid appeals. :-4-: ITA. Nos: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 ... NFAC, Delhi, has erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeals by exparte orders, by not considering the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeals and without giving any opportunity to the assessee on merits of the case, is erroneous in law. 8. Further

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 968/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

assessee by passing three separate orders even dated 23/02/2024, by rejecting the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee for condoning the delay filing the appeals, stating that the appellant is not having ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing the aforesaid appeals. :-4-: ITA. Nos: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 ... NFAC, Delhi, has erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeals by exparte orders, by not considering the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeals and without giving any opportunity to the assessee on merits of the case, is erroneous in law. 8. Further