← 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

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

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

ITA 655/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief fact of the case are that the case was reopened for the assessment year ... counsel to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) in time and thereby, the delay has been caused and prayed for condoning the delay of filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition for both the assessment years. 5. On the other hand

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

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

ITA 654/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief fact of the case are that the case was reopened for the assessment year ... counsel to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) in time and thereby, the delay has been caused and prayed for condoning the delay of filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition for both the assessment years. 5. On the other hand

Kunal Golecha, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3139/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3139/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kunal Golecha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 8, Harrington Road, Non Corporate Ward 3(4), 16Th Avenue, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 031. [Pan:Aiqpg2506H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 23.08.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Service Of Notice (Ad On Record) Or Filed Any Adjournment Petition. Hence, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

scrutiny of appeal papers, the Registry has issued defect notice to the assessee to rectify the defect by filing affidavit and petition for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the assessee has not rectified the defect notified by the Tribunal. In view

Natarajan Pillai Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

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

ITA 153/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 152 & 153/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Jai Balaji Nagar, Corporate Ward 5(3), Thirumalai Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 078. [Pan:Albpp8266H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 06.12.2018 & Dated 13.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 Is Delayed By 788 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Out Of Which 725 Days Are Coming Under Covid-19 Pandemic Period & 63 Days Delay

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

days are coming under Covid-19 pandemic period and 63 days delay before Covid-19 period. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit. By referring to the petition for condonation of delay, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that ... filing the appeal. It was also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. We have gone through the detailed petitions filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in the form of affidavits

Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

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

ITA 152/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 152 & 153/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Jai Balaji Nagar, Corporate Ward 5(3), Thirumalai Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 078. [Pan:Albpp8266H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 06.12.2018 & Dated 13.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 Is Delayed By 788 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Out Of Which 725 Days Are Coming Under Covid-19 Pandemic Period & 63 Days Delay

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

days are coming under Covid-19 pandemic period and 63 days delay before Covid-19 period. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit. By referring to the petition for condonation of delay, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that ... filing the appeal. It was also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. We have gone through the detailed petitions filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in the form of affidavits