← 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

All India Liquid Bulk Impoerters & Exporters Asssociation, Mumbai vs. ADIT(E)-II(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1604/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleall India Liquid Bulk Vs. Adit(E)-Ii(2) Importers & Exporters Piramal Chambers, Association Lalbaug, Parel, 501- Mulratna, Mumbai – 400012. 334- Katha Bazar, Masjid, Mumbai – 400009. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca5018F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal: I. Confirmation Of Treatment Of The Non-Profit Organisation As A Mutual Concern & Denying Exemption U/S 11: 1. The Learned C1.T(A) Erred In Confirming Treatment Of The All Inida Liquid Bulk Importers & Exporters Association, Mumbai. Appellant As A Mutual Association Created Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Basic Conditions Of The Concept Of Mutuality Are Not Satisfied, Hence The Same Is Not Applicable To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 25

hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 69 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay . We found the facts mentioned are reasonable and the delay is neither willful nor wanton, accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal

DCIT, 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2695/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 2695/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2002-03) Dcit-4(1)(1), Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. 4Th Floor, Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaaci0995H ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं. 3072/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2002-03) Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. 4Th Floor, Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaaci0995H ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit-4(1)(1), Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. J. Sarvanan, Dr "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Krupa Gandhi, Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2022

For Appellant: Sh. J. Sarvanan, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Krupa Gandhi, AR
Section 14A

Assessment Years 2002-03. 2. The appeal of the asssessee is time barred by six days. The asssessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The Revenue has not opposed condonation of delay in filing of appeal by the asssessee. After perusing the application, we are satisfied that

Madhav Raksha Sankalpa, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 299/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Madhavi Raksha Sankalpa बिधम/ Cit(Exemptions) 3Rd Floor, Nirmal Niketan 2, Room No.617, 6Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Bhajekar Street, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Khetwadi Main Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatm7188H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions)- Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(Exemptions)”] In Which The Application U/S 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Has Been Ordered To Be Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Natural Justice 1.1 The Learned Commissioner Of Income - Tax (Exemption), Mumbai (“Ld. Cit (E) Erred In Rejecting The Application For Registration Under Section 12A Of The Appellant Ex - Parte.

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 12A

called for.” 3. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. An application of condonation of delay has been filed. The CIT(Exemptions) has passed the order on 31.08.2020. The present appeal has been filed on 15.03.2021. The reason for filing ... matter is required to be adjudicated merits. Pandemic period is still going. The finding plausible reason to file the appeal delayed, we condone the delay. We also noticed that the CIT(Exemptions) has passed the order on 31.08.2020 during the pandemic period without hearing the appellant. It is against