← 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

Priyanka Lalitkumar Raizada, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4379/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalpriyanka Lalitkumar Raizada Vs Dcit Circle 42(3)(1), C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi, 16Th Mumbai Floor, D Wing, Trade World Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Kurla Complex, Bandra Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 East, Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Aekpr3350J) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058479077(1) Dated 05.12.2023 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cti (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 21,50,540/-Being Sale Proceeds Of Inherited Jewellery As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

There is a delay of 490 days noted by the registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit by the assessee is placed on record. From the perusal of the same, it is noted that during the time when ... certificates of her mother as well as CA Shailesh Navnitlal Doshi, in support of her submission. We have gone through the petition seeking condonation of delay, wherein 3 ITA No.4379/MUM/2025 AY: 2014-15 Priyanka Lalitkumar Raizada all the details which led to the said delay are explained and narrated briefly

Indra Singh, Gwalior vs. ITO Ward -3(2), Gwalior

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

ITA 485/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanindra Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (2), 219/4, Dogarpur, Murar, Gwalior. Gwalior – 474 006 (Madhya Pradesh). (Pan : Cfmps5449J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Order : 17.12.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 19.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Filing Of Appeal, The Registry Has Pointed Out A Defect That Appeal Is Time Barred By 147 Days. In Response Thereof, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of The Appeal On The Ground That The Assessee Promptly Informed Chartered Accountant Regarding The Said Order For Further Necessary Action, However Due To Inadvertence & Omission On The Part Of The Chartered Accountant, The Appeal Before The Tribunal Could Not Be Filed Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Submitted

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

pointed out a defect that appeal is time barred by 147 days. In response thereof, the Assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on the ground that the assessee promptly informed Chartered Accountant regarding the said order for further necessary action, however ... that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 3. I have heard ld. DR of the Revenue and perused the application for condonation of delay. In my considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay in filing