← 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

Santosh Arun Kaspate, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Pune

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

ITA 2199/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2198 & 2199/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Arun Kaspate, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Panchwati Niwas Kaspate Vasti, Wakad, Pune- 411027. Pan : Acypk3347C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 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 25.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2198/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 143(3)Section 68

dated 13.06.2022. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering or appreciating the reasons given by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay of the appeal file and thereby dismissing the appeal as "not maintainable". 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance ... /NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with a delay of 11 months, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 7. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. When the appeal was called for hearing neither

Santosh Arun Kaspate, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Pune

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

ITA 2198/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2198 & 2199/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Arun Kaspate, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Panchwati Niwas Kaspate Vasti, Wakad, Pune- 411027. Pan : Acypk3347C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 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 25.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2198/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 143(3)Section 68

dated 13.06.2022. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering or appreciating the reasons given by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay of the appeal file and thereby dismissing the appeal as "not maintainable". 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance ... /NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with a delay of 11 months, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 7. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. When the appeal was called for hearing neither

Kadeer Shaikh Amir Shaikh, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1981/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1981/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kadeer Shaikh Amir Shaikh, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), 178, Tilak Nagar, Sillod, Aurangabad. Aurangabad- 431112. Pan : Cxgps1949P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramesh N. Thete (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Chennai [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. 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 Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh N. Thete (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 148

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. 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 appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 2 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Addition made by AO is bad in law and need to be dropped. Income derived from business can never be 100 percent and hence entire cash deposited cannot

Gauri Shivajirao Jadhav, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 1646/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1646/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gauri Shivajirao Jadhav, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune. Seva, 678, Nere Nr. Iims College, Jambe Mulshi, Pune- 411033. Pan : Bdppj8217B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rander Revenue By : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. 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 Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay RanderFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. 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 appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 2 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant merely