← 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

Haja Moinudeen, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward 4, Puducherry

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

ITA 1598/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1598/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Haja Moinudeen, The Income Tax Officer, No.6, Subbiah Salai, Vs. Ward 4, Puducherry – 605 001. Puducherry. Pan: Aabph 0929C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that this appeal is barred by limitation by 569 days and assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay supported by affidavit. The brief facts relating to this condonation petition are that the order of CIT(A) dated 08.04.2022 claimed to have been ... view that delay can be condoned with a cost of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, seeing circumstances and cost adduced to assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal by levying a cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). The appeal of the assessee is accordingly admitted for adjudication

Shreyansh Jain, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward - 9 (4), Chennai

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

ITA 1020/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1020/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Shreyanash Jain, The Income Tax Officer, 121, Vaibhav Apartments, Vs. Non- Corporate Ward 9(4), Evk Sambath Road, Chennai. Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. Pan: Afwpj 3966P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

file the appeal. He further stated that the delay in filing of appeal is neither willful nor wanton. Hence, he requested for condonation of delay. 3. On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR opposed condonation of delay and stated that the delay is extraordinary and delay cannot be attributed ... Madras within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order. Hence, seeing circumstances and cost adduced to assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal by levying a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). In term of the above, the appeal

K Pukhraj Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4225/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailk.Pukhraj Enterprises Vs. Ito, Ward 4(2)(4) Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan 44, 3Rd Floor, Shahi Gully 4Th Floor, Zaver Bazar, Kalbadevi Mumbai Maharasthra 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck5086A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Prateek Jain Respondent By : P.D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing An Ex Parte Order, Without Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld Ao In Issuing Notice Dated 31 03 2017 U/S 148 Of The Act & The Consequent Order Dated 22.12 2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act Passed Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld Ao In Making An Addition Of Rs.7,69,50,000/- Оп Account Of Share Premium Received On Increase In Paid-Up Share Capital, For The Reasons Mentioned In The Impugned Order Or Otherwise.

For Appellant: Prateek JainFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 148

There was delay in filing the appeal by 33 days and the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit dated 18.04.2024 of the director of the assessee company Mr. Dinesh Rathod. In the affidavit it is explained that director of the assessee company who had received ... Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katigir (1987) taxman.com 1072 wherein held that sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with a view to do even handed justice on merit in preference to scuttle a decision on merit. After considering