← 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

Raghu Alekh Barli, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 915/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of Page ... view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we are inclined to condone the delay of 21 days. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits

Bikaram Pushpender, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 1606/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of Page ... view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we are inclined to condone the delay of 21 days. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits

Sanzyme Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 1487/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of Page ... view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we are inclined to condone the delay of 21 days. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits

Lingamgunta Adilaxmi, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 1317/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of Page ... view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we are inclined to condone the delay of 21 days. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits

Malleshwari Naramulla, Ranga Reddy vs. ITO., Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1195/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1195/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Malleshwari Vs. Income Tax Officer Naramulla Ward 2(1) Ranga Reddy Hyderabad Pan:Aulpn5122B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Snsr Chinmai & S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Advocates SNSR Chinmai and S SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri T. Venkanna, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(b)

/NFAC in dismissing the appeal in limine. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred in rejecting the petition requesting for condonation of delay without appreciating the reasons submitted by the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have considered the fact that ... reasons beyond the control of the appellant and is not intentional. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have decided the grounds of appeal agitated

Basudev Swain, Rourkela vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rourkela

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 697/CTK/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.662 & 697/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Basudev Swain, Hig- B 110, Vs Acit, Rourkela Phase-Iii, Kalinga Vihar, Chhend Colony, Rourkela-769015 Pan No. : Aygps 2479 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Ray Mohapatra, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Ray Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. DR

assessment year 2014-15 & 2015- 16. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petitions supported by affidavits stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay ... appeals of the assessee are admitted for hearing. 3. Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that in the condonation petition, it was stated that the assessee was complete unaware about the assessment

Basudev Swain, Rourkela vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rourkela

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/CTK/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.662 & 697/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Basudev Swain, Hig- B 110, Vs Acit, Rourkela Phase-Iii, Kalinga Vihar, Chhend Colony, Rourkela-769015 Pan No. : Aygps 2479 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Ray Mohapatra, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Ray Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. DR

assessment year 2014-15 & 2015- 16. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petitions supported by affidavits stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay ... appeals of the assessee are admitted for hearing. 3. Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that in the condonation petition, it was stated that the assessee was complete unaware about the assessment

Shivaji Nikam, Market Lane vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Ayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 648/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.648/Ctk/2025:("नधा"रण वष" / Asst Year:2017-18) Shivaji Nikam, Market Lane, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Khurda Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Abypn 7505 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Basant Kumar Das, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Basant Kumar Das, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr DR

dispose of the appeal. 3. The appeal is time barred by 357days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit for condoning the delay stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious ... objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 357 days in 2 आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.648/CTK/2025: ("नधा"रण वष" / Asst Year:2017-18) filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the outset