“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

Prem Chand Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

ITA 493/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mohammed Shafi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 5

hearing. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation and delayed by 1 day. The assessee has filed application requesting condonation of delay. The reasons for delay are mentioned in the application are as under :- “ MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS, The humble appellant most respectfully bags to submit ... condoned. PRAYER It is therefore, humbly prayed that the present application under section 5 of Limitation Act may kindly be allowed and condone the delay of just 1 day in filing of second appeal. It is further humbly prayed that the appeal filed by me may be treated to been

Nav Bharat Stone Crusher, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bhiwani

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1147/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(1)Section 221(1)Section 250Section 40Section 40B

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 2. That order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) dismissing the appeal in limine may kindly ... assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. The submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. Issue involved:- 1.1 Condonation of delay sought by Nav Bharat Stone Crusher ("hereinafter referred to as appellant assessee") was rejected by the CIT(A) in limine without considering the merits

Rastogi Segma Furnitech Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 559/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 37

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :- “1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is a Private ... Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section

Avvnl Aen Csd-II, Sikar vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 258/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing as under:- “3. I have carefully considered the reason given for condonation of delay. I find that the reason given by the appellant is baseless and without any supporting evidences. The case law cited by the appellant are not applicable in this case ... days and appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.” 4. Aggrieved from the above order of the ld. CIT(A) not condoning the delay of 803 days, the assessee preferred an appeal on various grounds has reiterated in para 2 above. From the various grounds and evidences placed on record