← 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

Invest Smart India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 355/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.355/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Invest Smart India (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 2(1) Pan:Aacci4258D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

even though the assessee has filed an Page 2 of 6 ITA No 355 of 2024 Invest Smart India P Ltd petition for condonation of delay with valid reasons. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and explained ... assessee for not filing the appeal in time appears to be reasonable and bonafide and also comes under reasonable cause. Thus, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the first appellate authority. 8. Having said so, let us come back to the issue. Admittedly, the assessment before

Sanjay Namdev Tilekar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 382/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.382/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjay Namdev Tilekar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Row House No.6, Manjari Green, Manjari Stud Farm, Phase One, Pune- 412307. Pan : Ahwpt3174F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly With 281 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Along With Death Certificate Of His Wife, Praying For Condonation Of Delay Of 281 Days In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 54BSection 55A

present appeal is filed belatedly with 281 days. The appellant furnished an affidavit along with death certificate of his wife, praying for condonation of delay of 281 days in the circumstances mentioned therein. Ld. DR could not controvert the averments made in the above affidavit. We are of the considered