← 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

Debashis Das, Kolkata vs. ACIT-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.947/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Debashis Das………………………………………................................……….…Appellant Uttara Tritiya Housing Complex, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Near City Center-2, W.B– 700156. [Pan: Aixpd81639Q] Vs. Acit, International Taxaion-1(1), Kolkata ..L..….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015–16. The Ld. Cit(A) Sustained The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Salary Income Earned By The Assessee During His Short-Term Foreign Assignment In The Philippines. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 366 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 5(2)(b)Section 6(1)

days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the affidavit for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal

Anuska Agency, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Wared-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 597/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 597/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Anuska Agency Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Chahata Ghat Infront Of Gayatri Temple, Bidanasi, Cuttack 753014 Pan No. : Aavfa 0007 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-4, Chennai Dated 28.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 182 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 182 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is delayed by 182 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 182 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is a traders of soft drinks, juice, packaged drinking

Rebati Dandapat, Mandir Pada, Nuapada, Odhisa vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhawani Patna Warda, Bhawanipatna

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

ITA 554/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.554/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Rebati Dandapat Vs Ito, Bhawanipatna Ward, W/O:- Priyaranjan Dandapat, Bhawanipatna Ward No:- 04, Mandir Pada, Nuapada, 766105 Pan No. : Dqrpd 6219 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Gupta, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 24/04/2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 106 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 106

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is delayed by 106 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 106 2 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. The Authorized Representative of the assessee, Mr. Vijay Gupta, being a Chartered Accountant, who appeared in the virtual hearing

Mrs. Jayanti Mohapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhaderak

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

ITA 539/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.539/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mrs. Jayanti Mahapatra Vs Ito Ward Bhadrak Qtr.No.4 Type-Ii, C/O J.K.Mohanty, Survey Of India Colony, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aoepm 2327 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Basudev Panda, Senior Advocate & Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi, Dated 08.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 586 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 586 Days In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Basudev Panda, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is delayed by 586 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons, which are not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 586 days in the appeal of the assessee is condoned