← 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

Srm Engineering Construction Cororation Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 489/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.489/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S.Srm Engineering Construction Dcit बनाम/ Corporation Ltd. Central Circle-1(3) No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1084/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S.Srm Engineering बनाम/ Central Circle-1(3) Construction Corporation Ltd. Chennai. No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 41(1)

appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR has not raised any objection to the condonation of delay and accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 1.3 The assessee’s grounds of appeal read as under

Pasumpon Thevar Educational Charitable Trust, Thoothukudi, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1543/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1543/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Pasumpon Thevar Educational Ito Charitable Trust Exemption Ward, बनाम/ Vs. 22, Sethu Palace, Kovilpatti Tirunelveli Thoothukudi Dist -628 502. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aactp-7987-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca) For Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA) for Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has preferred an application seeking condonation of delay u/s 119(2) before CBDT which is pending for disposal. The Ld. AR, in the alternative, drew attention to the income and expenditure account

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai vs. Srm Engineering Construction Corporation Limited, Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1084/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.489/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S.Srm Engineering Construction Dcit बनाम/ Corporation Ltd. Central Circle-1(3) No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1084/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S.Srm Engineering बनाम/ Central Circle-1(3) Construction Corporation Ltd. Chennai. No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 41(1)

appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR has not raised any objection to the condonation of delay and accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 1.3 The assessee’s grounds of appeal read as under

M/S. Indovision Securities Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1353/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1353/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Indovision Securities Ltd….…………............…...……………....Appellant Block B, Suit No.1A, 1St Floor Mangalam, 24 & 26 Hemanta Basu Sarani, Isi P.O S.O, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaaci5310G] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata….….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 196 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned. 3. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte When No Proper & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The appeal is time-barred by 196 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The assessee in this