← 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

Mr Sanjay Dutt, Mumbai vs. JCIT Range 11 (1), Mumbai

ITA 91/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred by 185 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. After examining the same we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal is not intentional and has been caused due to bona ... case of Ram Nath Sahu & Ors vs. Gobardhan Sao reported as 2002 AIR 1201(SC) has held that while dealing with application seeking condonation of delay, acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjay Dutt, Mumbai

ITA 2414/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred by 185 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. After examining the same we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal is not intentional and has been caused due to bona ... case of Ram Nath Sahu & Ors vs. Gobardhan Sao reported as 2002 AIR 1201(SC) has held that while dealing with application seeking condonation of delay, acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide

Sanjay S. Dutt, Mumbai vs. Asst 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7109/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred by 185 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. After examining the same we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal is not intentional and has been caused due to bona ... case of Ram Nath Sahu & Ors vs. Gobardhan Sao reported as 2002 AIR 1201(SC) has held that while dealing with application seeking condonation of delay, acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide

Malla Foundation, Mysore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru

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

ITA 604/BANG/2021[NA]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am M/S.Malla Foundation The Commissioner Of Income- #11 Meghna Haven, Ndanahalli Tax (Exemption) V. Bengaluru. T.N.Pura Road Kasaba Hobli Mysore – 570 028. Pan : Aaftm3688P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(Exemption)’S Order Dated 24.03.2021. 2. There Is A Delay Of 176 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & An Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated For Belated Filing Of The Appeal, We Noticed That No Latches Can Be Attributed To The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause In Filing This Appeal Belatedly. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Smt.Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

order dated 24.03.2021. 2. There is a delay of 176 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated for belated filing of the appeal ... noticed that no latches can be attributed to the assessee and there is sufficient cause in filing this appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-7, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

delay of 1348 days. IT(TP)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 19 6. We have considered the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the present case for the delay cannot ... There is therefore lack of explanation for the delay in filing the appeal after 28.05.2019 (at best). We therefore refuse to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In our view, filing of the appeal is purely an afterthought. The assessee cannot seek IT(TP)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Page

42 Hertz Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant 2231, One Bangalore Commissioner Of West, Income Tax, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Circle – 3 (1)(1), Bangalore North, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 010. Pan: Aaacz7113J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pvss Prasad, Ca : Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 18/03/2020 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore, For Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Tax Effect Relating To Each Ground Of Grounds Of Appeal Appeal (See Note Below) The Appellate Order Of Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Is 1. 43,46,900/- Bad & Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law On The Facts & In The Circumstances 2. 43,46,900/- Of The Case & In The Law, The Ld

For Appellant: Shri PVSS Prasad, CA
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 90

Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 257 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. It was submitted that the appeal was supposed to be filed on or before 17.05.2020. However, the same

M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 373/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 10ASection 234CSection 72

Ld.AR that there is delay of 1178 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR has filed the application seeking condonation of delay and submitted as under: “4. However, during the intermittent period the concerned advocate who prepared the appeal was no longer associated with the appellant ... submitted that the non filing of the appeal within the period of limitation was an inadvertent mistake and prayed for the condonation of delay. The Ld.DR opposed to the application of condonation of delay. We have perused the submissions advanced by the both sides in light of records placed before

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2042/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

delay of 1348 days. IT(TP)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 19 6. We have considered the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the present case for the delay cannot ... There is therefore lack of explanation for the delay in filing the appeal after 28.05.2019 (at best). We therefore refuse to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In our view, filing of the appeal is purely an afterthought. The assessee cannot seek IT(TP)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Page

ITO 20 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vishal Junnar Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai

ITA 7752/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Vishal Junnar Sahakari Patpedhi Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Maryadit, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. 5-6, Marwadichawl, K.L. Borkar Parel, Marg, Ghaudapdev D.P. Wadi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400033 Pan No. Aaaav 0104 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vishal Junnar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Patpedhi Maryadit, B/3, Sussex Industrial Estate, Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadojikonddeo Cross Road, Mumbai-400012. Byculla (E), Mumbai-400027. Pan No. Aaaav 0104 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Vishal Junnar Sahakari Patpedhi Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Maryadit, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. 5-6, Marwadichawl, K.L. Borkar Parel, Marg, Ghaudapdev D.P. Wadi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400033 Pan No. Aaaav 0104 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Kadrekar&For Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

delay is condoned and matter is finally disposed on merit. The Ld. DR on the other hand, did not seriously object for condonation of delay. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue of condonation of delay. It is undisputed that there is a delay ... filing the appeal. Therefore, in the factual metrics of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay. 5.2 In the light of the aforesaid discussion, in exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay