← 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

Nirmal Barik, Bhadrak vs. ITO, Bhadrak

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

ITA 289/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.289/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Nirmal Barik, Vs Ito, Bhadrak Padhuan Padhuan, Anantapur, Bhadrak Pan No. :Alfpb 5745 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Biswojit Sahoo, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15.03.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1050798334, For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 104 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed Necessary Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein He Has Mentioned That The Assessee Failed To File The Instant Appeal Within The Time Due To Health Problems. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Has Not Found To Be False. Consequently, The Delay Of 104 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Biswojit Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR

that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 104 days for which the assessee has filed necessary affidavit for condonation of delay, wherein he has mentioned that the assessee failed to file the instant appeal within the time due to health problems. The affidavit filed by the assessee

Aabahana, Cuttack vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Berhampur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.225/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Aabahana, Vs Ito, Exemption Ward, Berhampur At: Malyabanta, Nachuni, Khurda-752028 Pan No. :Aabta 9704 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.04.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052225643(1), For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Return Of The Assessee Came To Be Filed On 27.09.2018 For The Relevant Assessment Year. In The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Exemption U/S.11 Of The Act Had Been Denied On The Ground That There Was Delay In Filing The Form 10B. The Assessee Had Filed Rectification Application U/S.154 Of The Act & The Cit(E), Hyderabad Had Condoned The Delay In Filing Of The Form 10B. The Rectification Application Had Been Allowed & The Assessee Was Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.11 Of The Act. Subsequently, Another

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

delay in filing the form 10B. The assessee had filed rectification application u/s.154 of the Act and the CIT(E), Hyderabad had condoned the delay in filing of the Form 10B. The rectification application had been allowed and the assessee was granted the benefit of deduction u/s.11 ... wherein the exemption had been again withdrawn on the ground that the CIT(E), Hyderabad had withdrawn the condonation of delay in e-filing of Form 10B and on account of the order of withdrawal of the condonation, the benefit of deduction u/s.11 of the Act had again been withdrawn