← 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

Mr.Desappan Mugunthan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 10(3), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.44/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Desappan Mugunthan Ito बनाम/ Vs. No.27, Chinna Babu, Non-Corporate Ward-10(3), Perambur Barracks, Chennai-600 012. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbopm-5851-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkataraman (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 147

days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the Ld. AR. The Ld. CIT-DR has opposed to condonation of delay. However, considering period of delay, the delay is condoned and we proceed with disposal of the appeal. 3. From case records, it emerges that ... proceedings. The appeal was filed with a delay of 72 days and Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing. 4. Though the assessee

M/S. Especial Softech Projects Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Cricle- 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.39/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S Especial Softech Projects Pvt. Ltd. Acit- Corp. Circle 1(1) बनाम/ 1782, 5Th Street, Anna Nagar West Chennai – 600 034 Vs. Chennai – 600 040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabce-1776-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 143(1)

appeal before us. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that appeal has been dismissed by first appellate authority for want of condonation of delay. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 2. From case records, it emerges that the assessee was denied deduction ... assessee preferred appeal against the same on 11.02.2021. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Considering the fact that substantial period of delay fall within Covid-19 Pandemic lockdown

Rathinam Ravichandran, Thiruppathur vs. DCIT, Non Corporate -1 Madurai, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.02/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri. Rathinam Ravichandran, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Mithilaipatti, Income Tax, Thiruppathur Taluk 622 409. Non Corporate Circle 1, Tamil Nadu. Madurai. [Pan: Axdpr 1043A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Sree Lakshmi Valli, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A

Counsel for assessee argued that an opportunity of being heard may be provided by the ld. CIT(A), also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before ... perused the reasons given in para 6& 7 of the affidavit for delay in filing the present appeal which are sufficient cause, hence, condone the delay of 20 days and admitted the appeal. Further, we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however keeping in mind the principle