← 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

Rudrapratap Tripathi, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-II, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1730/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1730/Mum/2020 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cir-3, Rudra Pratap Tripathi R. No. 2, B-Wing, 6Th Prop. M/S Indian Corporation, Floor, Ashar It Park, 502, Modi House, 5Th Floor बनाम/ Road No. 16, Wagle Indl. Opp. Rto Office Vs. Estate, Thane, Eastern Express Highway, Maharashtra, Thane West, Maharashtra Pin-400 604 Pin-400 602 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Actpt0115A (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. K. Garg, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

decision thereon). 5. At the outset, the appeal has been filed belatedly and the assessee, an “individual” by status had filed affidavit seeking condonation of delay. During the course of hearing of appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee had filed paper book which contained written submission dated ... filing the appeal:- 2. The appeal had been filed belatedly, by more than six months, for the reasons enumerated in the petition for condonation of delay, and explanation for condonation of such delay had been filed in the form of affidavit duly sworn-in by the appellant himself (forming part

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-30(3) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 49/MUM/2022[ 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee citing the reason that the assessee has not filed condonation of delay of Seven Sixty One (761) days without calling from the assessee the reasons for delay. The Ld. CIT(A) also on merits confirmed ... which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) citing the reason that the assessee had not filed application for condonation of delay caused for seven sixty one (761) days to file the appeal before him; and also for not mentioning the same in Form no. 35 at point

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 30(3) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 48/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee citing the reason that the assessee has not filed condonation of delay of Seven Sixty One (761) days without calling from the assessee the reasons for delay. The Ld. CIT(A) also on merits confirmed ... which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) citing the reason that the assessee had not filed application for condonation of delay caused for seven sixty one (761) days to file the appeal before him; and also for not mentioning the same in Form no. 35 at point

Dhananjay G. Mishra, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeal NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 477/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.477/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Dhananjay G. Mishra बिधम/ Acit, Circle-20(1) Prop. Yeoman Marine Piramal Chambers, Vs. Services (Yms) Lalbaugh, Mumbai. W-1402, World Crest, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, The World Towers Delisle Road, Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aflpm1475K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Mody Revenue By: Shri Mahiita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.12.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Not Allowing The Credit Of Tds Of Rs.24,41,710/-. 3. Brief Facts Pertaining To The Issue Is That Assessee Is An Individual Having A Proprietary Concern Running In The Name Of Yeoman Marine Services ( Herein After In Short ‘Yms’) Which Was Succeeded By A Private Limited Company Yeoman Marine Services Private Limited (Herein After In Short ‘Ymspl’) W.E.F. 01.11.2015. Appellant Is A Contractor In Ship Repairing Business. During The Year The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Mahiita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 194CSection 199

answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The appeal is, as such, dismissed. It is recorded that there is an application for condonation of delay of 35 days. We have taken up the appeal for hearing after having condoned the delay.” 9. Here in this present case

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-30(3) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 47/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee citing the reason that the assessee has not filed condonation of delay of Seven Sixty One (761) days without calling from the assessee the reasons for delay. The Ld. CIT(A) also on merits confirmed ... which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) citing the reason that the assessee had not filed application for condonation of delay caused for seven sixty one (761) days to file the appeal before him; and also for not mentioning the same in Form no. 35 at point

Aarey Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy CIT 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 820/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleaarey Drugs & Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(3) Pharmaceuticals Ltd, 8Th Floor, Pratishta 103, Sahakar Bhavan, Bhavan, 340/348/ Narsi Natha Mumbai-400 020 Street, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai -400069. Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5253A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 14ASection 234A

Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Act. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and explained that due to Covid pandemic, the filling was delayed and relied ... extension of period of limitation and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. We found the facts mentioned are reasonable and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48 has erred