← 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

Deepika Trust, Villupuram vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 452/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.452/Chny/2024 Deepika Trust Cit(Exemption) No.1/86. Mariyamman Koil Street Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Nandhivadi Village, Nemur B.O. Villupuram Dist. - 605 203. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacta-6864-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Nidhi Jain (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Denial Of Registration U/S. 80G(5) By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai [Cit(E)] Vide Impugned Order Dated 16-08-2023, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 129 Days In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation Petition Which Is Supported By An Affidavit Of Managing Trustee Of Assessee Trust. It Has Been Submitted Therein That The Assessee Was Under A Bona-Fide Belief That Time Limit Would Be Extended

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Jain (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 80G(5)

Circular. It has also been submitted that managing director was not present at the station. Though Ld. CIT-DR has opposed condonation of delay, considering the fact that the assessee is a trust, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication on merits. 3. Upon perusal of impugned order

Aim Trust, Villupuram vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 451/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.451/Chny/2024 Aim Trust Cit(Exemption) 8/34, High School Street, Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Kandanchipuram Post Villupuram Dist. - 605 701. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahta-7588-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Nidhi Jain (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Denial Of Registration U/S. 80G(5) By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai [Cit(E)] Vide Impugned Order Dated 18-01-2023, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 339 Days In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation Petition Which Is Supported By An Affidavit Of Managing Director Of Assessee Trust. It Has Been Submitted Therein That The Assessee Was Under A Bona-Fide Belief That Time Limit Would Be Extended

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Jain (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 80G(5)

Circular. It has also been submitted that managing director was facing adverse medical condition. Though Ld. CIT-DR has opposed condonation of delay, considering the fact that the assessee is a trust, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication on merits. 3. Upon perusal of impugned order, it could

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Trichy vs. Annamalai Annamalai Senthilkumar, Trichy

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1402/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1125/Chny/2023 (िनधा,रण वष, / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annamalai Senthilkumar Dcit बनाम 16A, Colony Main Road, Thillai Nagar, Circle-1(1) / Vs. Trichy-620 018. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeupa-7210-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1402/Chny/2023 (िनधा,रण वष, / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Annamalai Senthilkumar बनाम Circle-1(1) 16A, Colony Main Road, Trichy. Thillai Nagar, / Vs. Trichy-620 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeupa-7210-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Ca) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld.DR
Section 144Section 69A

days in revenue’s appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR has not objected to condonation of delay. Considering the same, the delay is condoned and we admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessment has been made on best judgement basis

Annamalai Senthilkumar, Trichy vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Trichy

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1125/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1125/Chny/2023 (िनधा,रण वष, / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annamalai Senthilkumar Dcit बनाम 16A, Colony Main Road, Thillai Nagar, Circle-1(1) / Vs. Trichy-620 018. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeupa-7210-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1402/Chny/2023 (िनधा,रण वष, / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Annamalai Senthilkumar बनाम Circle-1(1) 16A, Colony Main Road, Trichy. Thillai Nagar, / Vs. Trichy-620 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeupa-7210-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Ca) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld.DR
Section 144Section 69A

days in revenue’s appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR has not objected to condonation of delay. Considering the same, the delay is condoned and we admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessment has been made on best judgement basis

Mr Ramanath Bajpai, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Pune

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

ITA 218/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.218/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. Ramanath Bajpai, Vs. Ito, Ward-4(4), Pune. B.No.5, S.No.245, Anant Co-Op Housing Society, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Ailpb5763E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Gopal Aswani Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 44 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. The Relevant Portion Of The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Is Reproduced Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri Gopal AswaniFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

present appeal is filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 44 days. The appellant furnished an affidavit praying for condonation of delay in the circumstances mentioned therein. The relevant portion of the affidavit for condonation of delay is reproduced hereunder :- 2 “The delay in filing the appeal ... before your honor to the authorized representative within time. I, therefore requests the honorable Bench to kindly consider the above mentioned fact and condone the delay in filing of Appeal by 44 days (forty-four days) for the AY 2011-12 and admit the appeal and oblige

DCIT, Central Circle, Kolkata vs. Merlins, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 907/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Merlins Merlin House Tax, Central Circle -2(3), Kolkata Vs Samghu Nath Pandit Street Bhowanipore Kolkata - 700020 [Pan : Aatfm9627P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 02/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 28 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 28 days in filing of this appeal. There is a petition for condonation of delay stating therein, the reasons for the delay. On perusal of the petition, we are convinced that the revenue was prevented for reasonable cause from filing ... this appeal in prescribed time limit. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 2 I.T.A. No. 907/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Merlins 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Ground that on the facts and circumstances of the case