← 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

Gurusamy Ashok Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.412/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sh. Gurusamy Ashok Kumar Ito बनाम/ Vs. No.2, Access Marvel, Urapakkam Non-Corporate Ward 22(6) Chennai – 603 210 Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Anypa-3743-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 22-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Assessment Has Been Made On Best Judgment Basis Sand Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.105.17 Lacs. The Position

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

Rs.105.17 Lacs. The position remained the same during appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 155 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity on the ground that hearing

Vettri Vikash Paper Mills, Coimbatore vs. ITO Ward 1, Pollachi

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.406/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vettri Vikash Paper Mills Ito 75/3D. 76/1B1, Ayyampalayam Village Ward 1, Pollachi – 642 001 बनाम/ Vs. Zamin Muthur Post, Pollachi Coimbatore – 642 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofv-1797-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19-07-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-12-2019. The Registry Has Noted A Delay Of 152 Days In The Appeal, The Condonation

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

partners of the assessee-firm. It has been submitted that the notices were sent on dormant email id. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay, however, considering the period of delay, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity

Shree Kongu Velalar Educational Trust, Erode vs. ACIT, Erode

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 385/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.385/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shree Kongu Velalar Ed. Trust Acit बनाम/ Vs. 355, Tkm Complex, Erode Rad Erode – 638 001 Perundurai Town, Erode-638052 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakts-2534-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) For Sh. T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018- 19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 12-04-2021. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Withdrew Exemption U/S 11 & Assessed

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) for Sh. TFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)

Rs.210.16 Lacs. The assessee largely remained non- cooperative during assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for want of condonation of delay of 95 days and also in view of the fact that no grounds of appeal were filed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal

Lignite City Club, Neyveli vs. ITO, Ward-2, Cuddalore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 371/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.371/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lignite City Club Ito बनाम/ Vs. Block 25, Neyveli-607 803 Ward 2 Cuddalore "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaal-6829-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Order Passed By Ld. Ao, Cpc U/S 154 On 26-09-2019. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 71 Days In The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay, The Delay Is Condoned & We Proceed For Adjudication Of Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 154

appeal on merits. 2. It could be seen that Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee for want of condonation of delay of 697 days. The assessee had explained that the rectification applications were rejected twice. On 13-02-2020, outstanding demand was raised ... reply was received without redressal of grievance. The assessee again preferred rectification petition on 15-08-2021. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has sought adjudication of appeal on merits which has been opposed

Karuppan Gomathi, Namakkal vs. ITO, Wrd-2, Namakkal

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 280/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.280/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Karuppan Gomathi Ito Ward 2 D.No.5/7A, Panamarthupatty Namakkal बनाम/ Vs. Pettapalayam Post Namakkal – 637 015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bgppg-5220-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act On 24-03-2022. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. However, It Emerges That The Assessment Has Been Framed On Best Judgment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

Rs.114.10 Lacs. The position remained the same during first appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 594 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal