← 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

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2194/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

respectively. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate

Vikas Kumar Dogra, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer Ward 4(5), Gurgaon

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7102/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7102/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Vikas Kumar Dogra, Flat No.B-702, Alaknanda Apartment, Gurgaon, Haryana 122011 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Amypd-3220-D बिाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward -4(5), Vanijya Nikunj, Shankar Chowk Road, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurgaon, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Haryana 122016 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri R. K Gaur, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’) Dated 24.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri R. K Gaur, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Solitary Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) In The Case Of The Assessee Is On Account Of Credit Card Payment Of Rs.5,36,986/- In Cash During The Period Relevant To Ay 2017-18. The Ld. Counsel Submits That The Ao Had Selected The Case Of Assessee For Limited Scrutiny To Examine The Credit Card Payment In Cash In Respect Of Citi Bank Credit Card No.4386280020862080. The Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 22.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri R. K Gaur, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

against order of the CIT(A) whereby delay in filing of appeal was not condone. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal citing reasons causing delay. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason ... Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic

Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 to 14, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2387/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 Vs The Income Tax Officer, To 14 Co-Operative Housiong Ward-2(4), Pune. Society Ltd., Unit B Society Office, Rajiv Gandhi It Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacab2693P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Ayesha Ansari & Shri Sandesh Ps – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 All Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S

Section 147Section 250Section 7(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

offend principles of natural justice and fairness. The same deserves to be quashed. 8. CIT(A) has erred in law in not granting Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal: 8.1 BECAUSE the delay in filing the Appeal occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant, arising ... appeal before this Tribunal. The Secretary of the Assessee ITA Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/PUN/2025 [A] – (03 Appeals) Society has filed an Affidavit requesting for condonation of delay. The reason mentioned in the Affidavit as under: “5. The delay in filing is bona fide and arose from the following circumstances beyond

Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 to 14, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2386/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 Vs The Income Tax Officer, To 14 Co-Operative Housiong Ward-2(4), Pune. Society Ltd., Unit B Society Office, Rajiv Gandhi It Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacab2693P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Ayesha Ansari & Shri Sandesh Ps – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 All Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S

Section 147Section 250Section 7(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

offend principles of natural justice and fairness. The same deserves to be quashed. 8. CIT(A) has erred in law in not granting Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal: 8.1 BECAUSE the delay in filing the Appeal occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant, arising ... appeal before this Tribunal. The Secretary of the Assessee ITA Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/PUN/2025 [A] – (03 Appeals) Society has filed an Affidavit requesting for condonation of delay. The reason mentioned in the Affidavit as under: “5. The delay in filing is bona fide and arose from the following circumstances beyond

The Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. ( in Liquidation), Dhule vs. The ITO, Ward- -1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1927/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 21(2)Section 250Section 80P

Grounds of Appeal.” Delay : 2. There was a delay of 74 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are convinced that there is reasonable and sufficient cause for delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Findings & Analysis