← 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

Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagar Palika Divyang Bhavan Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2583/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2582 & 2583/Pun/2025 Pimpri Chinchwad Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Mahanagar Palika Divyang Bhavan Foundation, Sr. No.31/1 To 31/5, Pune City, Welfare Center For Disable Pimpri Pf, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaocp4376M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 03.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The It Act Filed On 10.12.2024 & Denying The Application For Approval In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The It Act Filed On 13.12.2024. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of Both Above Captioned Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

There is delay in filing of both above captioned appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals. ITA No.2582/PUN/2025 : 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of IT Act on 10.12.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness

Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagar Palika Divyang Bhavan Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2582/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2582 & 2583/Pun/2025 Pimpri Chinchwad Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Mahanagar Palika Divyang Bhavan Foundation, Sr. No.31/1 To 31/5, Pune City, Welfare Center For Disable Pimpri Pf, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaocp4376M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 03.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The It Act Filed On 10.12.2024 & Denying The Application For Approval In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The It Act Filed On 13.12.2024. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of Both Above Captioned Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

There is delay in filing of both above captioned appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals. ITA No.2582/PUN/2025 : 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of IT Act on 10.12.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness