← 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

M/S. Shivam Developers, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Shivam Developers The Dy.Cit Plot No.C/1, 1301, Phase-I Vs Mehsana Circle Gidc, Chhatral, Tal.Kalol Mehsana Dist. Gandhinagar – 382 229 Pan: Abwfs 4815 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar & Shri Daivat Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthe Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S.Shivam Developers Vs. Dcit Mehsana Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AR &For Respondent: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 69C

deleted. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. Condonation of Delay: 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 266 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. There were condonation ... reason given in the Affidavit is generic in nature and there is no supporting evidence submitted to the petition and, therefore, opposed to condone the delay. 4.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 Taxmann.com 1072, analyzed the provisions

Loksewa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, Buldhana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Lokeswa Shikshan The Commissioner Of Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, V Income Tax-I, Nagpur. C/O. Dr.Arvindw.Kolte, S Janta College, Buldhana Road, Malkapur – 443101. Pan: Aaatl5306N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjay Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur Dated 11.11.2014 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Material Already On Record The Learned Cit Should Have Granted Registration U/S. 12A As Per Assessee’S Application Filed On Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A]

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 148Section 253(3)

callous and not serious towards the registration. 3.1 In the case of P.K.Ramachandran Vs. State of Kearala, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court condoned the delay of 565 days, the appellant P.K.Ramachandran filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court ... Supreme Court refused to condone the delay. The relevant paragraph of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order is reproduced here as under : Quote “That apart, we find that in the application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of delay, the thrust in explaining the delay after

Syed Rehan Haider, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 63(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.122/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) Syed Rehan Haider, 16, Rashid Market, Street 2, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No. Aggph-5559-P बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Faceless Assessment Unit, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Shankar Prasad Jaiswal, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 30.11.2023, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Shankar Prasad Jaiswal, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee, Submits That The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order

For Appellant: Shri Shankar Prasad Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

against the assessment order 2 dated 26.03.2023. The said appeal was time barred by 117 days, the assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay before the CIT(A). The said application was further supported by an affidavit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine ... fact that there was delay of 117 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay citing reasons causing delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) taking a hyper technical view

Shri R V Shah Charitable Trust, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.DIT, CPC, Bengaluru Current Jurisdiction the ITO, Exemp., Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 257/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri R V Shah Charitable Trust The Dy. Director Of Income C/O. Madhu Silica Pvt.Ltd. Vs Tax, Cpc 147, Gidc, Vartej Bengaluru Bhavnagar 364 060 (Current Jao : Ito (Exempt), Gujarat Bhavnagar Pan: Aaets 0593 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 19/01/2024 Passed By The Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [“Jcit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 17/10/2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,48,175/-. The Said Return Was Processed By Cpc Bengaluru U/S.143(1) Of The Act On 03/03/2023 & Income Was Determined At Rs.13,64,912/-. This Was Due To Denial Of Exemption U/S.10(23C) Of The Act By The Cpc. The Assessee Had Filed An

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 246ASection 250

file the Revised return or if time for revision is not available, make a claim before the competent authority (Pr. CIT) for condonation of delay. In the instant case it appears that the appellant has neither revised the return nor made any application for condonation. In the statute, the Addl ... Appeals) has not been empowered to condone such delay or allow any claim which is not made in the return. (d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit (2006) 284 ITR 323 has held that the assessee can amend a return filed