← 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

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 644/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

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangrai Sri Vidya 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 372/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

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. Uthangrai Sri Vidya 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 371/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

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. Uthangrai Sri Vidya 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 370/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

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

Radha Diamonds, Erode vs. ITO, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 729/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.729/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radha Diamonds, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 371, Nethaji Road, Circle 1, Erode. Erode 638 001, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaifr0066K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore, Dated 23.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

reasonable cause for the delay and the delay in filing the appeal is neither 3 I.T.A. No.729/Chny/23 wilful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of delay and to admit the appeal for adjudication. Against the above submissions, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Considering the facts ... circumstances, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication subject to the condition that the assessee should pay ₹.5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court and produce necessary proof of payment of cost before the Registry

DCIT Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. Shri O. Panneerselvam, Chennai

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

ITA 582/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nanda Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी”"ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी वी.दुगा

DCIT Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. Shri O. Panneerselvam, Chennai

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

ITA 581/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nanda Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी”"ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी वी.दुगा

JCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Tara Jewellery, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 276/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 276/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Tara Jewellery, Income-Tax, V. 61, West Bashyakaralu Road, Non-Corporate Circle -2, R S Puram, Aayakar Bhavan, Coimbatore – 641 002. 63, Race Course Road, [Pan: Aagft-2345-B] Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

For Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 68Section 69A

hearing, we find that there is a delay of 33 days in appeal filed by the revenue for which a petition for condonation of delay, along with affidavit explaining reasons :-4-: ITA. No: 276/Chny/2023 for delay has been filed. The ld. DR, Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT, referring to affidavit ... delay may be condoned. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant contents of petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and after going through reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal within time allowed under the Act, we find that the reasons