← 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

Shri Kunpara Kadva Patidar Samaj Seva Trust, Surendranagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 953/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.952/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.953/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year : - Shri Kunpara Kadva Patidar The Cit(Exemption) Samaj Seva Trust Vs Ahmedabad R Samaj Seca Trust, Chaman Ramjibhai Patel Navalgadh, Dhrangadhra, Surendranagar – 363 320 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaxts 9852 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee-Trust Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmadabad [Hereinafter Referred As “The Ld.Cit(E)”], Dated 19-02-2024 & 07-03-2024, Wherein The Application For Registration Under Section 12Ab & 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Were Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

were not having e-mail address, they did not receive any email from the Ld.CIT(E). The trustee also filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. ITA Nos.952 & 953/Ahd/2024 Shri Kunpara Kadva Patidar Samaj Seva Trust vs. The CIT(E) 4 5. The Ld.Departmental Representative did not object ... condonation of delay and stated that since the Ld.CIT(E) has not decided the matter on merits, it will be apt to refer the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E). 6. We have heard the learned representatives of both parties and perused the material available on record

Shri Kunpara Kadva Patidar Samaj Seva Trust, Surendranagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 952/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.952/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.953/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year : - Shri Kunpara Kadva Patidar The Cit(Exemption) Samaj Seva Trust Vs Ahmedabad R Samaj Seca Trust, Chaman Ramjibhai Patel Navalgadh, Dhrangadhra, Surendranagar – 363 320 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaxts 9852 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee-Trust Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmadabad [Hereinafter Referred As “The Ld.Cit(E)”], Dated 19-02-2024 & 07-03-2024, Wherein The Application For Registration Under Section 12Ab & 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Were Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

were not having e-mail address, they did not receive any email from the Ld.CIT(E). The trustee also filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. ITA Nos.952 & 953/Ahd/2024 Shri Kunpara Kadva Patidar Samaj Seva Trust vs. The CIT(E) 4 5. The Ld.Departmental Representative did not object ... condonation of delay and stated that since the Ld.CIT(E) has not decided the matter on merits, it will be apt to refer the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E). 6. We have heard the learned representatives of both parties and perused the material available on record

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan:Aaacu5211A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Has Been Preferred Assailing The Confirmation Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, Ita No.73/Kol/2024 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Is Consequential To The Quantum Additions Contested By The Assessee In Appeal No.72/Ko/2024. We First Take Quantum Appeal In Ita No.72/Kol/2024. I.T.A. No.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

could not be noticed as the same was lying in the junk mail folder. A separate application before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay was also filed explaining the aforesaid reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted ... within the prescribed limitation period. Considering the above submissions of the assessee which are corroborated with the relevant documents, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter is accordingly restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits. Needless

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan:Aaacu5211A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Has Been Preferred Assailing The Confirmation Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, Ita No.73/Kol/2024 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Is Consequential To The Quantum Additions Contested By The Assessee In Appeal No.72/Ko/2024. We First Take Quantum Appeal In Ita No.72/Kol/2024. I.T.A. No.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

could not be noticed as the same was lying in the junk mail folder. A separate application before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay was also filed explaining the aforesaid reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted ... within the prescribed limitation period. Considering the above submissions of the assessee which are corroborated with the relevant documents, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter is accordingly restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits. Needless