← 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

Navinbhai Bachubhai Makadia L/H. Samirbhai Navinbhai Makadia, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (3) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 207/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 207/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Navinbhai Bachubhai Makadia, Vs. The Ito Ward 3(1)(3) L/H. Samirbhai Navinbhai Makadia Rajkot - 360001 C/O Uma Motor Opp- S.T. Work Shop. Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aetpm1907P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Written Submission Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 12 /2025

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR
Section 144Section 250

served on 26.05.2023 Hence, there is a delay of 606 days in filing the appeal. That the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with the appeal. That application runs as under :- “I/We have filled an appeal on 27 103/2025 With the Hon ITAT Rajkot. The appeal ... case as per guidelines prevailing in the decisions of Hon Supreme court, and Hon. Gujarat High Court.” 4. As per the condonation of delay the evidence and the reasons for delay in filing the appeal will be submitted at the time of hearing of the assessee. That the assessee

Rajwant Kaur, Pehowa, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, Ward 3, Kurukshetra

In the result, the delay is condoned and the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1023/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal With A Delay Of 408 Days. Along With The Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay. In The Condonation Petition, The Assessee Has Explained That She Is A Farmer By Occupation, Residing In A Rural Area & Has Very Limited Knowledge Of Income Tax Laws As Well As Online Procedures. It Has Been Stated That She Was Not Aware Of The Requirement To Check Or Respond Through The Income-Tax E-Filing Portal & Came To Know About The Demand Only Upon Receipt Of A Physical Notice From The Department. Thereafter, She Immediately Sought Professional Assistance. The Delay, According To The Assessee, Is Wholly Unintentional & Caused Due To Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 148

present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 408 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. In the condonation petition, the assessee has explained that she is a farmer by occupation, residing in a rural area, and has very limited knowledge ... delay, according to the assessee, is wholly unintentional and caused due to circumstances beyond her control. 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the contents of the petition, we are satisfied that the reasons furnished constitute reasonable and bona-fide cause. In the interest