← 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

Jayaraman Gopalakrishnan, Tiruavarur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3140/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3139 & 3140/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2011-12 Shri Jayaraman The Asst. Commissioner Of Gopalakrishnan, Vs. Income Tax, 35, Ap Koil North Street, Circle 1, Tiruvarur, Vijayapuram, Thanjavur. Tiruvarur – 610 001. Pan: Aajpg 5166G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 250

Nos.3139 & 3140/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 585 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reasons stated is that, due to the illness of assessee ... perusal of the reasons stated, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed

Jayaraman Gopalakrishnan, Tiruvarur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3139/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3139 & 3140/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2011-12 Shri Jayaraman The Asst. Commissioner Of Gopalakrishnan, Vs. Income Tax, 35, Ap Koil North Street, Circle 1, Tiruvarur, Vijayapuram, Thanjavur. Tiruvarur – 610 001. Pan: Aajpg 5166G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 250

Nos.3139 & 3140/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 585 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reasons stated is that, due to the illness of assessee ... perusal of the reasons stated, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Gounder Mariappan, Karur

ITA 1631/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1628/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Maragathamani Shanmugam, Vs. 54A, Muthu Nagar, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Abkps-2816-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1629/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vs. Vaishnava Priya, 33, B7 Adhisri Apartments, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Adwpv-0050-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1631/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -1, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Vs. Gounder Mariappan, No.1, 80 Feet Road, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Agppm-2363-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69

find that the aforesaid appeals (ITA Nos.1628 & 1629/Chny/2025) are filed with a delay of 3 days. The AO filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons for belated filing of the appeals. On hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavits, we find the reasons stated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Life Line Auto Finance, Karur

ITA 1630/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1630/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2, Trichy. Vs. Life Line Auto Finance, 306-B1, First Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan:Aaefl-7071-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2015 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2013–14. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 101Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 292C(1)Section 34Section 69A

1630/Chny/2025 2. We find that the appeal is filed with a delay of 3 days. The AO filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons for belated filing of the appeal. On hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated