← 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

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhakhara, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 337/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhakhara, Kurud, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 336/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 335/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 334/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 333/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 332/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kodebod, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 331/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kodebod, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 330/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhendri, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 329/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhendri, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 328/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Sankardah, Dhamtari vs. Inocme Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 327/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Sankardah, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 326/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Madeli, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 325/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kosmarra, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 324/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kurud, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 323/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained

M/S Bps Infrastructure, Baloda Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee firm in ITA No

ITA 315/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 315/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Bps Infrastructure Village- Raseda, Tehsil-Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar-493 332 (C.G.) Pan : Aaofb5038R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Ward-1(3), Raipur (C.G.) 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) had raised objection to the seeking of the condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant. 8. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused ... case of M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No.6240/MUM/2007 for A.Y.1999-2000, dated 23.03.2020, had held that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained based on a justifiable

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in- Situ), Central Circle, Jabalpur vs. Manish Kumar Sarogi, Katni

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

ITA 39/JAB/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 153A

delay of 294 days in filing the C.O. and the learned counsel for the assessee, in support of the application for condonation of delay, submitted that the assessee is suffering cancer and he is taking treatment by often visiting to Mumbai, therefore, prayed for condoning the delay. The assessee ... also produced the medical documents in support of the application. We have heard on the application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay and also considering the fact that the Assesssee has raised the legal issue which goes to the root

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jabalpur vs. Shri Manish Kumar Saraogi, Katni

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

ITA 62/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 153A

delay of 294 days in filing the C.O. and the learned counsel for the assessee, in support of the application for condonation of delay, submitted that the assessee is suffering cancer and he is taking treatment by often visiting to Mumbai, therefore, prayed for condoning the delay. The assessee ... also produced the medical documents in support of the application. We have heard on the application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay and also considering the fact that the Assesssee has raised the legal issue which goes to the root

Ramesh Mannava, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

ITA 252/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 252/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mr. Ramesh Mannava, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5-60-213/1, Msr Cotton Ward-2(1), Corporation, 4/4 Ashok Nagar, Guntur. Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522007. Pan: Agdpm 8289 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR drew my attention to the petition, along with an affidavit, filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee explained the reasons for belated filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted herein ... stipulated time. In my considered opinion, the explanation given by the assessee constitutes ‘reasonable and sufficient cause’ and 3 therefore I hereby condone the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

S. M. Agro Plantere& Processors Pvt. Ltd., Dhenkanal vs. Pcir Range-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2015-16 S.M.Agro S.M.Agro Plantere Plantere & & Vs. Pr. Pr. Cit, Cit, Range Range-1, Processors Pvt Ltd., Anand Processors Pvt Ltd., Anand Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bazar, Dhenkanal. Bazar, Dhenkanal. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aagcs 9108 L (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Patnaik , Adv Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023

For Appellant: Shri J.M.PatnaikFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak
Section 14ASection 263Section 7A

Assessment Year : 2015-16 3. The appeal is time barred by 343 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 343 days. In the petition, it is stated that the order of Pr. CIT was challenged by the assessee before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... days. It was the prayer that the delay be condoned. Ld CIT DR did not have any objection. In view of above, we condone the delay of 343 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment in the case