← 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

Dharma Promoters Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2085/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2085/Chny/2014 and ITA No. 2513/Chny/2017 are time barred by 54 days and 45 days, respectively, for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the in ITA No. 2085/Chny/2014, the assessee could not file ... therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee’s submitted that the reasons given by the assessee’s does not come within the ambit of reasonable

Shri A. Mohamed Ziavuddin, Chennai vs. ITO Non -Corporate Ward -11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 954/CHNY/2020[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.953 & 954/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri A. Mohamed Ziavuddin, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 8, New No. 6/34, Venkata Iyer Non-Corporate Ward 11(2), Street, Muthialpet, George Town, Chennai Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aaapz3654R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 15.04.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 520 Days Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In The Form Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay, 2 I.T.A. Nos.953 & 954/Chny/20 wherein, it was explained for the delay between the period from 23.06.2019 to 23.03.2020 that the delay was due to ill health ... have been under periodical medical check-up besides underwent cataract IOL implantation. Considering the old age and heart treatment/post operative treatments, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication subject to the condition that the assessee should pay ₹.5,000/- for each assessment

Shri A. Mohamed Ziavuddin, Chennai vs. ITO Non-Corporate Ward-11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 953/CHNY/2020[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.953 & 954/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri A. Mohamed Ziavuddin, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 8, New No. 6/34, Venkata Iyer Non-Corporate Ward 11(2), Street, Muthialpet, George Town, Chennai Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aaapz3654R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 15.04.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 520 Days Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In The Form Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay, 2 I.T.A. Nos.953 & 954/Chny/20 wherein, it was explained for the delay between the period from 23.06.2019 to 23.03.2020 that the delay was due to ill health ... have been under periodical medical check-up besides underwent cataract IOL implantation. Considering the old age and heart treatment/post operative treatments, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication subject to the condition that the assessee should pay ₹.5,000/- for each assessment

Raghava Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 434/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 431, 432, 433 & 434/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5, Nimmo Road, Santhome, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle Iii(4)/ Chennai 600 005. Corporate Circle 3(2) [Pan:Aafpr6559N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

control, the assessee was unable to file the appeals in time and there is sufficient cause for the delay and prayed for condonation of delay and admitting the appeals for adjudication. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has pointed that even before the ld. CIT(A) towards delay ... cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. In the petition for 3 I.T.A. Nos.431-434/Chny/19 condonation of delay in filing the appeal for the assessment year

Raghava Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 433/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 431, 432, 433 & 434/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5, Nimmo Road, Santhome, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle Iii(4)/ Chennai 600 005. Corporate Circle 3(2) [Pan:Aafpr6559N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

control, the assessee was unable to file the appeals in time and there is sufficient cause for the delay and prayed for condonation of delay and admitting the appeals for adjudication. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has pointed that even before the ld. CIT(A) towards delay ... cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. In the petition for 3 I.T.A. Nos.431-434/Chny/19 condonation of delay in filing the appeal for the assessment year

Raghava Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 432/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 431, 432, 433 & 434/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5, Nimmo Road, Santhome, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle Iii(4)/ Chennai 600 005. Corporate Circle 3(2) [Pan:Aafpr6559N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

control, the assessee was unable to file the appeals in time and there is sufficient cause for the delay and prayed for condonation of delay and admitting the appeals for adjudication. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has pointed that even before the ld. CIT(A) towards delay ... cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. In the petition for 3 I.T.A. Nos.431-434/Chny/19 condonation of delay in filing the appeal for the assessment year

Raghava Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 431/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 431, 432, 433 & 434/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5, Nimmo Road, Santhome, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle Iii(4)/ Chennai 600 005. Corporate Circle 3(2) [Pan:Aafpr6559N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

control, the assessee was unable to file the appeals in time and there is sufficient cause for the delay and prayed for condonation of delay and admitting the appeals for adjudication. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has pointed that even before the ld. CIT(A) towards delay ... cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. In the petition for 3 I.T.A. Nos.431-434/Chny/19 condonation of delay in filing the appeal for the assessment year

Devaraj Construction, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai

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

ITA 1061/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1061/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Devaraj Construction, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Karisalpatti, Karumatthur Post, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 625 514. [Pan:Aadfd1225F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 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) 2 (I/C), Madurai Dated 28.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Time Barred By 407 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal, Wherein, The Assessee Has Stated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. CIT

barred by 407 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In support of an affidavit, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein, the assessee has stated as under: 2 I.T.A. No. 1061/Chny/19 The petitioner avers that the income tax matters were ... appeal is not disposed off on facts and circumstances of the case, the firm would be put to considerable hardship arid injury. The condonation of delay in filing the appeal would give an opportunity to the appellant firm to address the issue and cancel the addition, which would otherwise