What is Areva T and D India Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

Delay in filing an appeal can be condoned, even if the delay is significant (e.g., 231 days), when caused by wrong advice from the assessee's counsel, demonstrating a pragmatic approach to condonation under the Limitation Act.

How many judgments cite Areva T and D India Ltd. v. JCIT?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite Areva T and D India Ltd. v. JCIT (287 ITR 555), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Areva T and D India Ltd. v. JCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 115BBE, Section 144, Section 183, Section 197(b).

Areva T and D India Ltd. v. JCIT (287 ITR 555)

Jagathesh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1566/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

…nt of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 13. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Areva T and D India Ltd v JCIT [2006] 287 ITR 555 (Mad) where the Hon’ble Madras HC held that where the delay was on account of advice alleged to be given by his counsel even where the assessee could not get an affidavit from his counsel, the delay was to be condoned. 14. The Hon’ble HC in this case also held as follows: It is a well-settled law that in exercising discretion under section 5 of…

Jagathesh, Chennai vs. Aacit, Ncc-11(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

…nt of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 13. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Areva T and D India Ltd v JCIT [2006] 287 ITR 555 (Mad) where the Hon’ble Madras HC held that where the delay was on account of advice alleged to be given by his counsel even where the assessee could not get an affidavit from his counsel, the delay was to be condoned. 14. The Hon’ble HC in this case also held as follows: It is a well-settled law that in exercising discretion under section 5 of…

Swaty Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2551/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

…the action on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal with delay. The assessee also sworn in an affidavit solely affirming the facts. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Areva T&D (India) Ltd. vs. JCIT (287 ITR 555), wherein delay of 231 days was condoned by the Hon’ble High Court which caused due to wrong advise given by the assessee’s counsel. Similarly, the assessee Swati Mehta also filed condonation petition along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay which are identical to the reasons explained by the assessee Sonia Mehta. 2. On heari…

Sonia Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2549/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

…the action on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal with delay. The assessee also sworn in an affidavit solely affirming the facts. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Areva T&D (India) Ltd. vs. JCIT (287 ITR 555), wherein delay of 231 days was condoned by the Hon’ble High Court which caused due to wrong advise given by the assessee’s counsel. Similarly, the assessee Swati Mehta also filed condonation petition along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay which are identical to the reasons explained by the assessee Sonia Mehta. 2. On heari…

Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Chennai vs. Addl JCIT (A), Jodhpur

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

ITA 449/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.449/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No.P3, Old No.P13, Non Corporate Ward 19(4) 19Th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan: Aplpj5195D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Varadarajan, Cma ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. Varadarajan, CMAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

…e we condone the delay. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases cited and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Areva T and D India Ltd., Vs. JCIT, [2006] 287 ITR 555 (Mad) and M/s Great Heights Developers LLP Vs Additional Commissioner Office of the CGST & Central Excise, Chennai [Writ Petition 1324 of 2024 dated 01.02.2024. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merit of the case, we incline to remit the file to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable oppor…

Tirupur Arunachala Gounder Radhambikai Kuppusamy, Tirupur vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.363/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) T A G Radhambikai Kuppusamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Mp Nagar Extension, Che –C (68) (1) Suriya Prabha Garden, Chennai. Tirupur 641 607

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramachandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 51

…e we condone the delay. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases cited and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Areva T and D India Ltd., Vs. JCIT, [2006] 287 ITR 555 (Mad) and M/s Great Heights Developers LLP Vs Additional Commissioner Office of the CGST & Central Excise, Chennai [Writ Petition 1324 of 2024 dated 01.02.2024. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merit of the case, we incline to remit the file to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable oppor…

Preetha Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 305/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.305/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Preetha Reddy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 1A, Jhavar Plaza, Nungambakkam Income Tax High Road, Chennai 600 034. Central Circle 3(1), [Pan:Aaepr5656F] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-1, Chennai Dated 30.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 284 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit By Stating As Under: “3. I State & Submit That My Case Has Been Handled By Mrs. K. Rajalakshmi Who Is A Chartered Accountant By Profession & She Has Advised Me After Perusal Of The Order Of Pcit (Central), Chennai-1. She Was Of The Opinion

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

…/23 ld. PCIT that the ld. PCIT has directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment and submitted that the delay was only on the advice given by the CA is neither intentional nor wanton. By placing judgement in the case of Areva T & D India Ltd. v. JCIT 287 ITR 555 (Madras) and pointing out para 4 to 8, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. He also relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Gospel Fellowship Trust [2010] 194 Taxman 167 (Mad) and referred to para 16 to 19. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitte…

Vinita Deepak Ahuja, Kolhapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 723/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 723/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019 Vinita Deepak Ahuja 1657-58, Lohiya Compound, Gandhi Nagar, Kolhapur. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Alnps6479B बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 10/12/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Arisen From An Order Of Intimation Dt. 29/04/2019 U/S 143(1) From The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2018-19. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 40A(3)

…AY: 2018-19 authority, and hence Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Courts cited hereinbefore and further the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in “Areva T and D India Ltd Vs JCIT”, 287 ITR 555 wherein on identical set of facts, delay was condoned on the basis of affidavit filed explaining the reasons. Consequently we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties and since the matter has been…

Prafulchabndra Bhaichandbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD.2(3)(3), Surat

ITA 104/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.104/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prafulchandra Bhaichandbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bharthana (Vesu), Via-Althan, Taluka 2(3)(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Choryasi, Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azcpd7755Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…te. was because of the wrong advice of the Tax Professional for which assessees cannot be penalized. For the ends of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.” 9. Hon`ble High Court of Madras, in the case of Areva T & D India Ltd.[2006] 287 ITR 555 (Madras) has explained the theory of pragmatic approach to advance the justice. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “4. It is apparent on the face of the record that the appellant/assessee could not prefer the appeal within the time on account of the advice alleged to have been given by his counsel, and the assessee could not g…

Satvinder Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 56(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3865/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 51

…CIT(A) by the assessee. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases cited and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Areva T and D India Ltd., Vs. JCIT, [2006] 287 ITR 555 (Mad). Therefore, without expressing anything on the merit of the case, we incline to remit the file to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Thus we allow the Grounds of Appeal No. 3. 8. Since the matter is remanded to CIT(A) to dec…

Narender Kumar Jain, Rishikesh vs. The Income Tax, Circle-1(4)(1), Rishikesh

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 36/DDN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Juneja, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 249

…CIT(A) by the assessee. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases cited and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Areva T and D India Ltd., Vs. JCIT, [2006] 287 ITR 555 (Mad) wherein the delay was condoned. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merit of the case, we inclined to remit the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Thus we allow the Grounds of Appeal No. 3. Since the matter…

Narender Kumar Jain, Rishikesh vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(4)(1), Rishikesh

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 35/DDN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Juneja, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 249

…CIT(A) by the assessee. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases cited and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Areva T and D India Ltd., Vs. JCIT, [2006] 287 ITR 555 (Mad) wherein the delay was condoned. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merit of the case, we inclined to remit the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Thus we allow the Grounds of Appeal No. 3. Since the matter…

Anish Metals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5474/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon‟Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ition Vrs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and N. Bal Krishanan Vrs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, Ram Nath Sao vrs. Gobardhan Sao (AIR 2002 SC 1201), Auto Centre Vrs. State of UP & Ors (2005) 278 ITR 291 (all), Areva T & D India Ltd vrs. JCIT (2006) 287 ITR 555 (Mad), Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel vrs. Ito (2013) 29 taxmann.com 389 (Guj) and Gujrat Electricity Board Vrs. DCIT (2013) 36 taxmann.com 340(Guj), etc. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and also rejoinder dated 21.01.19 containing judgments such as AKK Nambiar Vr.s Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 652,…

Ram Bharose Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,o Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1066/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2013-14 cuke Shri Ram Bharose Sharma The ITO Vs. Plot No. 10, Sumer Nagar-III, Kalyan Nagar, Ward- 2(4) New Sanganer, Mansarovar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ATFPS 0763 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksj…

Areva T and D India Ltd. v. JCIT