← 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

B.G.M. Consortium Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2288/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2287 & 2288/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1531 & 1532/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) B.G.M. Consortium Limited, Vs P.C.I.T. Kolkata-1/ Room No.1014/145, 10Th Floor, Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Kirishna Building, 224 Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata West Bengal-700 017 Pan No. :Aaccb 2065 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Respondent: None
Section 263

four appeals, ITA Nos.2287 & 2288/Kol/2025 are filed belatedly by 1592 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation condonation of delay which are not found to be false. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 1592 days delay each in both the appeals and both the appeals are admitted ... ΙΤΑ. Νο.2288/Kol/2025 for AY 2012-13 ITA.No. 1531/Kol/2025 for AY 2011-12 ITA.No. 1532/Kol/2025 for AY 2012-13 PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Humble Petition of the Appellant Above Named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That the appellant has filed four appeals before this Hon'ble Tribunal

B.G.M. Consortium Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2287/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2287 & 2288/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1531 & 1532/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) B.G.M. Consortium Limited, Vs P.C.I.T. Kolkata-1/ Room No.1014/145, 10Th Floor, Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Kirishna Building, 224 Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata West Bengal-700 017 Pan No. :Aaccb 2065 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Respondent: None
Section 263

four appeals, ITA Nos.2287 & 2288/Kol/2025 are filed belatedly by 1592 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation condonation of delay which are not found to be false. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 1592 days delay each in both the appeals and both the appeals are admitted ... ΙΤΑ. Νο.2288/Kol/2025 for AY 2012-13 ITA.No. 1531/Kol/2025 for AY 2011-12 ITA.No. 1532/Kol/2025 for AY 2012-13 PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Humble Petition of the Appellant Above Named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That the appellant has filed four appeals before this Hon'ble Tribunal

B.G.M. Consortium Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1532/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2287 & 2288/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1531 & 1532/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) B.G.M. Consortium Limited, Vs P.C.I.T. Kolkata-1/ Room No.1014/145, 10Th Floor, Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Kirishna Building, 224 Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata West Bengal-700 017 Pan No. :Aaccb 2065 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Respondent: None
Section 263

four appeals, ITA Nos.2287 & 2288/Kol/2025 are filed belatedly by 1592 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation condonation of delay which are not found to be false. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 1592 days delay each in both the appeals and both the appeals are admitted ... ΙΤΑ. Νο.2288/Kol/2025 for AY 2012-13 ITA.No. 1531/Kol/2025 for AY 2011-12 ITA.No. 1532/Kol/2025 for AY 2012-13 PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Humble Petition of the Appellant Above Named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That the appellant has filed four appeals before this Hon'ble Tribunal

B.G.M. Consortium Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1531/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2287 & 2288/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1531 & 1532/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) B.G.M. Consortium Limited, Vs P.C.I.T. Kolkata-1/ Room No.1014/145, 10Th Floor, Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Kirishna Building, 224 Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata West Bengal-700 017 Pan No. :Aaccb 2065 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Respondent: None
Section 263

four appeals, ITA Nos.2287 & 2288/Kol/2025 are filed belatedly by 1592 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation condonation of delay which are not found to be false. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 1592 days delay each in both the appeals and both the appeals are admitted ... ΙΤΑ. Νο.2288/Kol/2025 for AY 2012-13 ITA.No. 1531/Kol/2025 for AY 2011-12 ITA.No. 1532/Kol/2025 for AY 2012-13 PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Humble Petition of the Appellant Above Named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That the appellant has filed four appeals before this Hon'ble Tribunal

Dosjibhai Chellabhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 6517/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19 Dosjibhai Chellabhai Patel, Commissioner Of Income Tax 2/201, Surbhi Apartment, (Appeals), Dafatry Road, Vs. Nfac, Delhi Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan : Aadpp5454C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Mansi Joshi For Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.Dr (Virtually Present) Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 30-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing The Appeal As Pointed Out By The Registry. After Hearing Both The Parties & Perusing The Material Placed On Record, We Find That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal & Hence, The Delay Is Hereby Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 50C

erred in dismissing the appeal on account of limitation. It was submitted that the assessee has moved an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), however, the same has not been considered and the Ld.CIT(A) has proceeded and dismissed the appeal

Radheshyam Shyamlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-11(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6103/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13 Radheshyam Shyamlal Gupta, Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Ward-11(2)(2), Anuradha Satyamurty Residency Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.16, N.S. Road No.11, M.K.Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400049. Pan : Aabpg4019L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jay Thakkar For Revenue : Shri Brajendra Kumar Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 04-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, Facts Of The Case Are That Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Wherein The Ao Has Determined The Long Term Capital Gain At Rs. 37,21,230/-, Being The 50% Share Of The Assessee In Respect Of Transfer Of 2 Property, Namely, Flat No. 2A & 2B, Anuradha Satyamurty Residency, Plot No.16, 11Th Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai, Which The Assessee Has Sold Jointly With His Wife, Mrs. Shubhadra R. Gupta. The Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Sustained The Order Of The Ao & Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)

fair and reasonable 3 that the matter is remitted to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the assessee‟s application seeking condonation of delay and decide the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to attend to the proceedings and submit