Agarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

14 SCC 578Reported decision2011#6243 most cited

What is Agarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority authority for?

A party must provide a valid explanation for each day of delay in filing an appeal and demonstrate a reasonable cause that was beyond their control.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Agarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority · 2011 · SCC 14 578 · delay in filing appeal · sufficient cause · reasonable cause · beyond control · negligence · inaction · bona fides · Section 5 Limitation Act

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 1961Section 144Section 249(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 249

Issues it is cited on

short deduction of tdspublic servantsection 249(2)section 200a(1)section 249(3)credit for tdssection 253(1)section 249section 253(3)delay in filing appealappeal before cit(a)section 246a

Judgments citing Agarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

Chittibabu Ghanta, Panaji, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 281/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

…period of limitation. Therefore, we and not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 902 days occurred in filing the present bunch of appeals. In this context we note that, in the case of ‘Anshul Agarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [2011, 14 SCC 578,] the hon’ble Apex Court held that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the Court. ITAT-Panaji Page 27 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 29. Further in vouching ‘sufficiency’ of reasons it is apt to highlight core principles cull…

Chittibabu Ghanta, Panaji, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 280/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

…period of limitation. Therefore, we and not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 902 days occurred in filing the present bunch of appeals. In this context we note that, in the case of ‘Anshul Agarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [2011, 14 SCC 578,] the hon’ble Apex Court held that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the Court. ITAT-Panaji Page 27 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 29. Further in vouching ‘sufficiency’ of reasons it is apt to highlight core principles cull…

Chittibabu Ghanta, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 279/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

…period of limitation. Therefore, we and not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 902 days occurred in filing the present bunch of appeals. In this context we note that, in the case of ‘Anshul Agarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [2011, 14 SCC 578,] the hon’ble Apex Court held that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the Court. ITAT-Panaji Page 27 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 29. Further in vouching ‘sufficiency’ of reasons it is apt to highlight core principles cull…

Chittibabu Ghanta, Goa vs. ACIT Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 278/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

…period of limitation. Therefore, we and not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 902 days occurred in filing the present bunch of appeals. In this context we note that, in the case of ‘Anshul Agarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [2011, 14 SCC 578,] the hon’ble Apex Court held that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the Court. ITAT-Panaji Page 27 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 29. Further in vouching ‘sufficiency’ of reasons it is apt to highlight core principles cull…

Kunkulagunta Mallikarjuna Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

ITA 579/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

…while exercising the discretionary power is limited to only such relevant facts. Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.579/VIZ/2025 Kunkulagunta Mallikarjuna Rao 4.6 Lastly, reference is made to the case of Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578 wherein it is held that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the Court. 4.7 From the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that that decision to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously and if appellate authorities start condoning delay where "no…

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6881/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Hinal Shah &For Respondent: Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

…of Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court held Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court that the reason provided for the delay must be something that the reason provided for the delay must be something that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevente…

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6880/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Hinal Shah &For Respondent: Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

…of Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court held Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court that the reason provided for the delay must be something that the reason provided for the delay must be something that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevente…

Attivo Protezione Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(1), Lalbaug

ITA 5380/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainattivo Protezione Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward – 22(1)(1) 108, 1St Floor Ashar Enclave Room No. 319, Piramal Kolshet Road, Thane – 400 Chambers, Mumbai 607. Pan/Gir No. Aalca4330M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 5

…h day of delay and demonstrate a reasonable cause. “Sufficient Cause” cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. In the case of Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon’ble Apex Court held that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the Court. 7 It is well established in law that the period of limitation has to be construed somewhat strictly as it has the effect of vesting for one and taking away right from the other. To co…

Altret Industries Private Limited, Saiyedpura Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 855/SRT/2024[2016-201]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2016-201

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

…action and lack of diligence on part of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decisions in the following cases: (i) Ram Lal & Ors vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, (ii) Anshul Agarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Mewa Ram (deceased by L. Rs) & Ors vs. State of Haryanna, AIR 1987 SC 13, (iii) Sate of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 291 and (iv) D. Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Anrs., AIR 2007 SC 2624. After considering the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and the above decisions, he held that there was no sufficient cause for not pre…

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officxer, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 818/SRT/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

…action and lack of diligence on part of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decisions in the following cases: (i) Ram Lal & Ors vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, (ii) Anshul Agarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Mewa Ram (deceased by L. Rs) & Ors vs. State of Haryanna, AIR 1987 SC 13, (iii) Sate of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 291 and (iv) D. Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Anrs., AIR 2007 SC 2624. After considering the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and the above decisions, he held that there was no sufficient cause for not pre…

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 816/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

…action and lack of diligence on part of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decisions in the following cases: (i) Ram Lal & Ors vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, (ii) Anshul Agarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Mewa Ram (deceased by L. Rs) & Ors vs. State of Haryanna, AIR 1987 SC 13, (iii) Sate of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 291 and (iv) D. Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Anrs., AIR 2007 SC 2624. After considering the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and the above decisions, he held that there was no sufficient cause for not pre…

Altret Industries Private Limited, Altret House, Saiyedpura vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 815/SRT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

…action and lack of diligence on part of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decisions in the following cases: (i) Ram Lal & Ors vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, (ii) Anshul Agarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Mewa Ram (deceased by L. Rs) & Ors vs. State of Haryanna, AIR 1987 SC 13, (iii) Sate of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 291 and (iv) D. Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Anrs., AIR 2007 SC 2624. After considering the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and the above decisions, he held that there was no sufficient cause for not pre…

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 814/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

…action and lack of diligence on part of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decisions in the following cases: (i) Ram Lal & Ors vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, (ii) Anshul Agarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Mewa Ram (deceased by L. Rs) & Ors vs. State of Haryanna, AIR 1987 SC 13, (iii) Sate of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 291 and (iv) D. Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Anrs., AIR 2007 SC 2624. After considering the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and the above decisions, he held that there was no sufficient cause for not pre…

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

ITA 812/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Si. No.

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

…action and lack of diligence on part of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decisions in the following cases: (i) Ram Lal & Ors vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, (ii) Anshul Agarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Mewa Ram (deceased by L. Rs) & Ors vs. State of Haryanna, AIR 1987 SC 13, (iii) Sate of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 291 and (iv) D. Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Anrs., AIR 2007 SC 2624. After considering the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and the above decisions, he held that there was no sufficient cause for not pre…

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 811/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Si. No.

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

…action and lack of diligence on part of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decisions in the following cases: (i) Ram Lal & Ors vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, (ii) Anshul Agarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Mewa Ram (deceased by L. Rs) & Ors vs. State of Haryanna, AIR 1987 SC 13, (iii) Sate of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 291 and (iv) D. Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Anrs., AIR 2007 SC 2624. After considering the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and the above decisions, he held that there was no sufficient cause for not pre…

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 810/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

…action and lack of diligence on part of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decisions in the following cases: (i) Ram Lal & Ors vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, (ii) Anshul Agarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Mewa Ram (deceased by L. Rs) & Ors vs. State of Haryanna, AIR 1987 SC 13, (iii) Sate of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 291 and (iv) D. Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Anrs., AIR 2007 SC 2624. After considering the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and the above decisions, he held that there was no sufficient cause for not pre…

Aditya Sapru, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed on account of delay

ITA 1421/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody & Shri Dhiren Talati,ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 5Section 54

…Cause" cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. In the case of Page 6 ΙΤΑ Νο. 1421/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2013-14 Aditya Sapru, Mumbai Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court held that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the Court. 5.2 It is well established in law that the period of limitation has to be construed somewhat strictly as it has the effect of vesting for one and taking away right from the other. To…

M/S Marathon India Ltd., Rajasthan vs. Smt. Pratima Kaushik, PCIT-1, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 235/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Jain, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 338Section 80Section 801E

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 235/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 cuke M/s. Marathon India Ltd. The Pr. CIT-1 D-248, Bihari Marg, Bani Park Vs. Jaipur Jaipur 302 016 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 1858 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Saksham Agarwal,CA, Shri B.L. Agarwal,CA…

Agarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (14 SCC 578) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax