← 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

Swami Samartha Maharaj Seva Samasthan, Kancheepuram vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3090/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.3090 & 3091/Chny/2025 Swami Samartha Maharaj Seva The Commissioner Of Income Samasthan, Vs. Tax(Exemptions), 1, Vasantham Nagar, Orikkai, Chennai. Barathiyar Street, Kancheepuram– 631 502. [Pan: Abbts-3864-Q] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$ की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. J. Saravanan, Advocate %&थ$ की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Arv Sreenivasan, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(E)”] Both Dated 05.12.2024 Passed Under Section 12Ab & 80G Of The Income Tax Act,1961 Respectively.

For Appellant: Mr. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

outset, we find that there is a delay of 245 days in appeals filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. The trustee of assessee’s trust submitted an affidavit for the delay stating that the assessee unaware of the order of rejection

Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Patna vs. Assessment Unit, Patna

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 434/PAT/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.429To 434/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd……………………………...………………. …………………....Appellant Feeder Balancing Dairy, Phulwarishariff, Patna, Bihar – 801505. [Pan: Aaaav8463B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi.…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishan Maitin, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 07.04.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). Since All The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee, Involve Common Facts & Arise Out Of Related Assessment & Penalty Proceedings, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. There Are Delays In Filing Of The Appeals, As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 80P

Delay 429/Patna/2025 84 delay 430/Patna/2025 84 delay 431/Patna/2025 296 days 432/Patna/2025 175 days 433/Patna/2025 175 days 434/Patna/2025 175 days 3. Separate condonation of delay petitions has been filed explaining the reasons for delay. After considering the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists. Accordingly, the delays

Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Patna vs. Assessment Unit, Patna

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 431/PAT/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.429To 434/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd……………………………...………………. …………………....Appellant Feeder Balancing Dairy, Phulwarishariff, Patna, Bihar – 801505. [Pan: Aaaav8463B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi.…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishan Maitin, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 07.04.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). Since All The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee, Involve Common Facts & Arise Out Of Related Assessment & Penalty Proceedings, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. There Are Delays In Filing Of The Appeals, As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 80P

Delay 429/Patna/2025 84 delay 430/Patna/2025 84 delay 431/Patna/2025 296 days 432/Patna/2025 175 days 433/Patna/2025 175 days 434/Patna/2025 175 days 3. Separate condonation of delay petitions has been filed explaining the reasons for delay. After considering the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists. Accordingly, the delays

Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Patna vs. Assessment Unit, Patna

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 430/PAT/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.429To 434/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd……………………………...………………. …………………....Appellant Feeder Balancing Dairy, Phulwarishariff, Patna, Bihar – 801505. [Pan: Aaaav8463B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi.…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishan Maitin, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 07.04.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). Since All The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee, Involve Common Facts & Arise Out Of Related Assessment & Penalty Proceedings, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. There Are Delays In Filing Of The Appeals, As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 80P

Delay 429/Patna/2025 84 delay 430/Patna/2025 84 delay 431/Patna/2025 296 days 432/Patna/2025 175 days 433/Patna/2025 175 days 434/Patna/2025 175 days 3. Separate condonation of delay petitions has been filed explaining the reasons for delay. After considering the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists. Accordingly, the delays

Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Patna vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 429/PAT/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.429To 434/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd……………………………...………………. …………………....Appellant Feeder Balancing Dairy, Phulwarishariff, Patna, Bihar – 801505. [Pan: Aaaav8463B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi.…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishan Maitin, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 07.04.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). Since All The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee, Involve Common Facts & Arise Out Of Related Assessment & Penalty Proceedings, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. There Are Delays In Filing Of The Appeals, As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 80P

Delay 429/Patna/2025 84 delay 430/Patna/2025 84 delay 431/Patna/2025 296 days 432/Patna/2025 175 days 433/Patna/2025 175 days 434/Patna/2025 175 days 3. Separate condonation of delay petitions has been filed explaining the reasons for delay. After considering the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists. Accordingly, the delays