← 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

Mahadevan Ramkrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cop. Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1567/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1566, 1567, 1568, 1569 & 1570/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Late Shri Mahadevan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ramakrishnan, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Malini Corporate Circle 6(2), Ramakrishnan, Chennai. 46, Rukmani Salai, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. [Pan: Aaapr 8240D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 64

these 5 appeals, the CIT(A) dismissed these appeals ex-parte without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard and also not condoning the delay. The ld.counsel for the assessee narrated the delay as under:- Assessment year No. of days delay ... take the facts and grounds from ITA No.1566/CHNY/2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. The grounds raised before CIT(A) as regards to condonation of delay reads as under:- "1) CPC Intimation under section 143(1) dated 28/07/2014 for the ITA Nos.1566 to 1570/Chny/2023 AY 2013-14 was received

Mahadevan Ramakrishan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1566/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1566, 1567, 1568, 1569 & 1570/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Late Shri Mahadevan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ramakrishnan, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Malini Corporate Circle 6(2), Ramakrishnan, Chennai. 46, Rukmani Salai, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. [Pan: Aaapr 8240D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 64

these 5 appeals, the CIT(A) dismissed these appeals ex-parte without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard and also not condoning the delay. The ld.counsel for the assessee narrated the delay as under:- Assessment year No. of days delay ... take the facts and grounds from ITA No.1566/CHNY/2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. The grounds raised before CIT(A) as regards to condonation of delay reads as under:- "1) CPC Intimation under section 143(1) dated 28/07/2014 for the ITA Nos.1566 to 1570/Chny/2023 AY 2013-14 was received

Spandan Foundation, Coimbatore vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2023[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1559/Chny/2023 Spandana Foundation, Commissioner Of Income-Tax 66, Race Course Road, V. (Exemptions), Coimbatore – 641 018. Chennai. [Pan: Abfts-5974-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Exemptions), Chennai, dated 12.10.2023. 2. We find that there is a delay of 15 days in filing of appeal, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. The assessee has stated that the appeal could not file on or before the prescribed ... reasonable cause and thus, delay should not be condoned. 4. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under

Vardhanapu Manikumari of Late Earnest Christopher Vardhanapu, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 256/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Vardhanapu Manikumari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Earnest Christopher Ward-1 Vardhanapu Bhimavaram D.No.21-16-30A Dora Bangalow Mission Compound, West Godavari [Pan : Aeepv0600F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

Hearing : 14.02.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : Condonation of Delay : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ... Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 with the delay of 50 days. The assessee filed petition 2 I.T.A. No.256/Viz/2023, A.Y.2014-15 Smt.Vardhanapu Manikumari, Bhimavaram for condonation of delay, submitting that when the assessee was to go to counsel’s office at Visakhapatnam to sign appeal papers

Mr. Gopal Ganesan, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Non Corp Circle-4, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1429/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1429/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Gopal Ganesan, Assistant Commissioner Of No.89, Kommandamparai, V. Income-Tax, Pichanur, Non-Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 105. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan: Ajdpg-2120-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 1 day :-2-: ITA. No: 1429/Chny/2023 for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that, the assessee could not file appeal within ... advancement of substantial justice. 3. Having considered the period of delay and reasons filed in affidavit, in the interest of natural justice, we condone the delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant was engaged