← 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

Susheel Sharma, Saharan Pur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Saharnpur, Saharan Pur

The appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment order is quashed

ITA 2992/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Susheel Sharma, Vs Ito, Aarath Bazar, Ward 3(4), Gangoh, Saharanpur. Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh – 247 341. Pan: Awwps2125A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Gulati, Advocate Revenue By : None- Adj. Application Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 08.06.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar/10280/2017-18 Arising Out Of An Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 30.08.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 3(4), Saharanpur (Hereinafter Referred As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: None- Adj. Application
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(3)Section 254Section 263Section 264

delay and the delay is 2 not for any substantial period and the reason appears to be genuine. We allow the condonation of delay. 4. Further, in regard to the additional ground before us, being pure question of law is admitted and the relevant provision of the Act, applicable

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 717/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

same.” As the delay is small delay of just 10 days and the cause seems reasonable, which was not contested by Revenue, we condone the delay and admit the cross objections. 9. Since we have adjudicated the Revenue’s appeals and dismissed Revenue’s appeals on the issue of jurisdiction ... filed by the Revenue on 04.08.2020 thereby there was a delay of 80 days. The assessee and Revenue have filed petition for condonation of delay stating that this - 21 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 delay is due to pandemic period

ACIT, Circle - 1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 716/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

same.” As the delay is small delay of just 10 days and the cause seems reasonable, which was not contested by Revenue, we condone the delay and admit the cross objections. 9. Since we have adjudicated the Revenue’s appeals and dismissed Revenue’s appeals on the issue of jurisdiction ... filed by the Revenue on 04.08.2020 thereby there was a delay of 80 days. The assessee and Revenue have filed petition for condonation of delay stating that this - 21 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 delay is due to pandemic period

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 715/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

same.” As the delay is small delay of just 10 days and the cause seems reasonable, which was not contested by Revenue, we condone the delay and admit the cross objections. 9. Since we have adjudicated the Revenue’s appeals and dismissed Revenue’s appeals on the issue of jurisdiction ... filed by the Revenue on 04.08.2020 thereby there was a delay of 80 days. The assessee and Revenue have filed petition for condonation of delay stating that this - 21 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 delay is due to pandemic period

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 714/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

same.” As the delay is small delay of just 10 days and the cause seems reasonable, which was not contested by Revenue, we condone the delay and admit the cross objections. 9. Since we have adjudicated the Revenue’s appeals and dismissed Revenue’s appeals on the issue of jurisdiction ... filed by the Revenue on 04.08.2020 thereby there was a delay of 80 days. The assessee and Revenue have filed petition for condonation of delay stating that this - 21 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 delay is due to pandemic period

Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 647/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

same.” As the delay is small delay of just 10 days and the cause seems reasonable, which was not contested by Revenue, we condone the delay and admit the cross objections. 9. Since we have adjudicated the Revenue’s appeals and dismissed Revenue’s appeals on the issue of jurisdiction ... filed by the Revenue on 04.08.2020 thereby there was a delay of 80 days. The assessee and Revenue have filed petition for condonation of delay stating that this - 21 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 delay is due to pandemic period

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educaional and Social Welfare Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 646/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

same.” As the delay is small delay of just 10 days and the cause seems reasonable, which was not contested by Revenue, we condone the delay and admit the cross objections. 9. Since we have adjudicated the Revenue’s appeals and dismissed Revenue’s appeals on the issue of jurisdiction ... filed by the Revenue on 04.08.2020 thereby there was a delay of 80 days. The assessee and Revenue have filed petition for condonation of delay stating that this - 21 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 delay is due to pandemic period

Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 645/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

same.” As the delay is small delay of just 10 days and the cause seems reasonable, which was not contested by Revenue, we condone the delay and admit the cross objections. 9. Since we have adjudicated the Revenue’s appeals and dismissed Revenue’s appeals on the issue of jurisdiction ... filed by the Revenue on 04.08.2020 thereby there was a delay of 80 days. The assessee and Revenue have filed petition for condonation of delay stating that this - 21 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 delay is due to pandemic period