Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

…thereto. 4. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect. if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy(1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s C…

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

…thereto. 4. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect. if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy(1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s C…

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

…thereto. 4. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect. if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy(1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s C…

Mickey Shrivastva, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

…t period. On perusal of the application of the assessee for condonation of delay along cause that has prevented the assessee in filing the present appeal. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported as (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. 62 CTR 23 (SC), has observed that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal by late and it was directed that a meritorious matter should not be thrown out at the very threshold because by refusing the contention may cause defeat of justice. In view of the above, we condone the…

Shri Bhawani Shankar Parashar, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

…in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy." [Emphasis Supplied] 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy as reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 has categorically held that: Page 3 of 21 Bhawani Shankar Page 4 of 21 "The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations in not because on the expiry of such time a ba…

Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

…Officer only required to be challenged and not the order of the Revisional Authority. While condoning the delay Honorable High Court has applied the principles laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. Krishnamurthy (1988) 7 SCC 123, by observing as under: “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties…

Mahamadali Adam Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Offocer, Ward 1(2), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mahamadali Adam Patel Income Tax Officer, Apana Nagar Society, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Vs At P.O. Vagara, Bharuch-392001 Pan No: Adxpp 0699 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Krutarth K Desai, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 03.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 27.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)/ Assessing Officer Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 19.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Appellant Was Hold The Status Of Agriculturist, During The Year Under Consideration I.E. Ay 2017-18. The Entire Money Received Was The Income From Agriculture Activities Which Are Wholly Exempt Mahamadali Adam Patel From Taxation Purview. Hence The Appellant Is Not Liable To Pay Any Tax On This Income Addition Made By The Authority & Hence This Appeal. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Appreciating The Factual Matrix Of The Case & Therefore The Addition Deserves To Be Deleted.

…. The Ld. AR for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay in filing assessees appeal. To support his submission, Ld.AR for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:  Rafiq C Munshilal (AIR 1981 SC 1400)  N.Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy (1998) (7 SCC 123)  B. Madhuri Goud vs. B Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693  Emsons Organics Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 269 (ITAT-Chandigarh) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental-Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue strongly opposed the delay of condonation. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee is a habitual defaulter that a…