← 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

M/S. Arrdy Engineering Innovations(P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. Asst.CIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatanam

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

ITA 136/VIZ/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.134, 135 & 136/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10; 2010-11 & 2013-14) M/S. Arrdy Engineering Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Innovations (P) Ltd (Formerly Income Tax, Known As M/S. Ardee Range-3, Technologies (P) Ltd), Visakhapatnam. Rourkela, Odisha. Pan: Aabca 4800 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to the delay of 1077 days, the Ld. AR drawn our attention to the petition for condonation of delay wherein the assessee has explained the reasons that prevented the assessee in filing these appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit ... aware of the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the contents of the petition filed before us seeking condonation of delay as well as the submissions of the Ld. AR, we find that the delay in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal has not been

M/S. Arrdy Engineering Innovations(P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. Joint.CIT, Range-3, Visakhapatanam

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

ITA 135/VIZ/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.134, 135 & 136/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10; 2010-11 & 2013-14) M/S. Arrdy Engineering Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Innovations (P) Ltd (Formerly Income Tax, Known As M/S. Ardee Range-3, Technologies (P) Ltd), Visakhapatnam. Rourkela, Odisha. Pan: Aabca 4800 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to the delay of 1077 days, the Ld. AR drawn our attention to the petition for condonation of delay wherein the assessee has explained the reasons that prevented the assessee in filing these appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit ... aware of the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the contents of the petition filed before us seeking condonation of delay as well as the submissions of the Ld. AR, we find that the delay in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal has not been

M/S. Arrdy Engineering Innovations(P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. Addl. CIT, Range-3, Visakhapatanam

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

ITA 134/VIZ/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.134, 135 & 136/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10; 2010-11 & 2013-14) M/S. Arrdy Engineering Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Innovations (P) Ltd (Formerly Income Tax, Known As M/S. Ardee Range-3, Technologies (P) Ltd), Visakhapatnam. Rourkela, Odisha. Pan: Aabca 4800 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to the delay of 1077 days, the Ld. AR drawn our attention to the petition for condonation of delay wherein the assessee has explained the reasons that prevented the assessee in filing these appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit ... aware of the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the contents of the petition filed before us seeking condonation of delay as well as the submissions of the Ld. AR, we find that the delay in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal has not been

Vibha Subhash Singh, Kharghar vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3740/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhvibha Subhash Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer- 1601 Viswahans, Sector Nfac, Ward 2(2) 35D, Near Bank Of India, Mohan Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kharghar – 410210 Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (W), Kalyan - 421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Apsps5258R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajeev Waglay Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 07.08.2023 For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 24,97,500 U/S. 69 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Appellant Had Neither Tendered The Income Tax Return Nor The Details Of Investment As Stated By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Had Filed The Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S. 148 On 21.9.2021 Under Acknowledgment No. 550248700210921 & That This Return Was Very Much Available On Income Tax Portal. Ii. Confirming The Above Addition Without Appreciating The Fact That When The Appellant Had Invested Of Rs. 14,00,000 Only In The Property, Higher Value Could Not Have Been Attributed To The Appellant Without Any Basis.

For Appellant: Rajeev WaglayFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

appeal.” 2. There was a delay of 12 days in filing this appeal for which the assessee has filed affidavit dated 05.10.2023 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In this regard, the assessee has submitted in the affidavit that assessee has not received physical copy of the appeal