Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

7 SCC 123Supreme Court of India1998#203 most cited

What is Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy authority for?

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.

368

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · Section 253(5) · Section 249(3) · Section 253 · Section 249 · Section 250 · reasonable cause · sufficient cause · substantial justice · bona fide explanation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253(5)Section 148Section 249(3)Section 5

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 249(3)section 249section 253delay in filing appealcondonation of delaysection 24registration under section 12asection 80g(5)reasonable causesection 80gsection 12ab

Judgments citing Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Huru vs. ITO, TDS-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 247/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 247 To 250/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S Oriental Bank Of Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, Tds-3, Post Box No. 56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. Tan No. Jpro01610A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Bench All These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur All Dated 08/01/2019 For The A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 201Section 201(1)

…thereto. 6. 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…

Uttam Air Products Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Uttam Air Products Pvt. Vs. Dict Cpc Ltd., 38, Rajender Park, Banglore New Delhi – 110060 Pan : Aaacu 0033 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Priyansh Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi Dated 22.09.2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 37Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…is order. Learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and thereby dismissed the appeal of assessee without considering the merits of the case. 5 8. I find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 70 SCC 123 has held that as long as the conduct of the applicant does not, on the whole, warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant, generally, the delay be condoned. It has further held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties but they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics. It has further he…

Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut vs. ITO(TDS & Survey), Meerut

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

ITA 6610/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Chaudhary Charan Singh Vs. Ito (Tds & Survey) University Meerut C/O Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aaagc 0339 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 154

…Counsel. Learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and thereby dismissed the appeal of assessee without considering the merits of the case. 3 6. We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 70 SCC 123 has held that as long as the conduct of the applicant does not, on the whole, warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant, generally, the delay be condoned. It has further held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties but they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics. It has further he…

DCIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sangam India Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld
Section 2(24)

…e Tribunal in the case of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v. Addl. CIT {ITA No. 5310/Mum/2010 dated 30/08/2019}. 5.7 The Ld. AR drew attention to the observations of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123) as under: - “11. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the r…

Smt. Ruksana, Jhalawar vs. ITO, Ward, Jhalawar

ITA 192/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 192/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/H Of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bjeps 1293 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kota Dated 21/09/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 15.03.2014 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Being Debatable Issue & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2.1 Rs.13,45,442/-: The Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3). The Provision So Invoked By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 192/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/h of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BJEPS 1293 M Appellant Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

A.N. School Shiksha Samiti, Sikar vs. JCIT-Range (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 252/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 A.N. School Shiksha Samiti, Cuke J.C.I.T.-Range Vs. Radha Swami Bag, (Exemption) Sikar-303702 Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabaa 6164 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kr Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 06/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 272A(2)(E) Dated 02/11/2018 As Well As Notices Are Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,53,700/- U/S 272A(2)(E) Invoked By The Ld Jcit. The Penalty So Imposed & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(JCIT)
Section 272A(2)(e)Section 272a(2)(e)Section 5

…i Vs JCIT 7. 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…

Smt. Priyanka Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Jaipur

ITA 214/JPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 214/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2009-10 Smt. Priyanka Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. D/O- Late Sh. Tulsi Das Agarwal, Ward-1(5), 2000, Khejaro Ka Rasta, Third Jaipur Crossing Shop, Topkhana, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aikpa 7142 B Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 26/06/2019 For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234

…hereto. 6. 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 5 ITA 214/JP/2020 _ Smt. Priyanka Agarwal Vs ITO 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…

M/S. Inscribe Graphics Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 107, 108 & 109/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Inscribe Graphics Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 174, Developed Plots, Industrial Estate, Vs. Income Tax, Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. Centralized Processing Cell, Tds, [Pan:Aacci0211Q] Ghaziabad. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 19.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. The Effective Common Grounds Raised In All The Appeals Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeals Dismissed The Appeal Without Concluding The Appellate Order On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 5

…itted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Moreover, in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Som…

M/S. Inscribe Graphics Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT (OSD), Corporate Range-2, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 109/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 107, 108 & 109/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Inscribe Graphics Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 174, Developed Plots, Industrial Estate, Vs. Income Tax, Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. Centralized Processing Cell, Tds, [Pan:Aacci0211Q] Ghaziabad. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 19.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. The Effective Common Grounds Raised In All The Appeals Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeals Dismissed The Appeal Without Concluding The Appellate Order On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 5

…itted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Moreover, in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Som…

M/S. Inscribe Graphics Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 107, 108 & 109/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Inscribe Graphics Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 174, Developed Plots, Industrial Estate, Vs. Income Tax, Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. Centralized Processing Cell, Tds, [Pan:Aacci0211Q] Ghaziabad. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 19.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. The Effective Common Grounds Raised In All The Appeals Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeals Dismissed The Appeal Without Concluding The Appellate Order On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 5

…itted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Moreover, in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Som…

M/S. Ryatara Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Kengeri, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2643/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member ITA No.2643/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Ryatara Seva Sahakari The Income Tax Officer Sangha Niyamita Ward 3(2)(3) v. 001,Kengeri, Bangalore South, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 060. PAN : AABAR3122L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ravish Rao, CA Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of Date of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Pronouncement : 20.11.2020 O R D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 05.12.201…

M/S. Danieli India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 305/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Danieli India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Pan: Aabcg5359E) Circle-2(1), Kolkata.

…Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded to condone the delay and cited the following judgments in his support; 1. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 134(SC) 2. N. BalakrishnanVs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 3. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 4. Golden Times Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (2020) 113 taxmann.com 524(Delhi) 5. Ms. Swati Pawa Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-9, New Delhi, [2019] 103 taxmann.com 300(Delhi- Trib) 6. Children Aid Society Employe…

Delhi Agroha Vikas Trust, Delhi vs. CIT(E) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 9349/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2020

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

…SC) 2. G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [1998] 2 SCC 3. N.Balkrishnan V M.M.Krishna Murthy AIR 1998 se 3222 4. Office of the Chief Post Master General Versus Living Media India Ltd. 2012 348 ITR 7 5. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 ITA No. 9348 & 9349/Del./2019 6. State of MP Vs. Pradeep Kumar (2000) 7 SC 372, 376-77) cited on page no. 12747 In Book of Shri Chaturvedi and Pithisaria. 7.Theprincipleratios which emerge out of the aforestated judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court are as under: (i) Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisi…

Delhi Agroha Vikas Trust, Delhi vs. CIT(E) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 9348/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2020

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

…SC) 2. G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [1998] 2 SCC 3. N.Balkrishnan V M.M.Krishna Murthy AIR 1998 se 3222 4. Office of the Chief Post Master General Versus Living Media India Ltd. 2012 348 ITR 7 5. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 ITA No. 9348 & 9349/Del./2019 6. State of MP Vs. Pradeep Kumar (2000) 7 SC 372, 376-77) cited on page no. 12747 In Book of Shri Chaturvedi and Pithisaria. 7.Theprincipleratios which emerge out of the aforestated judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court are as under: (i) Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisi…

Hiren Mohanlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1861/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodhiren Mohanlal Shah Vs. Ito-17(2)(2) 371, Sukh Niwas Castle Room No.122 Bhandarkar Road, Piramal Chambers Matunga (C.R), Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 019 Pan/Gir No.Aaups0624G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 36

…ther, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other aside cannot claim to have a vested right injustice being done, because of a non- deliberate delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M.Ramamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, has held that a court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing 5 Hiren Mohanlal Shah a suitor form putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delays in approaching the court is always deliberate. From the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in above case, it is very clear that when, the assessee has gi…

Tarunshree Cotton (P) Ltd., Rayagada vs. D.C.I.T. Berhampur Circle, Berhampur

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

ITA 233/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

…ry is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of N. Bal Krishnan v/s. M. Krishnamurthy - [(1998) 7 SCC 123] observed that: "The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties & to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for 4 approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform in to a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right…

Vinayak Care Solutation (P) Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Oto Ward 3(2), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 137/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ito-3(2) Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 115, Atlanta Estate Vs. Goregaon, Mulund Link Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcv8500G Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema & P.D. Nagar Ars Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhopal Dated 08.02.2016 For The Assessment

Section 5

…delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate- Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 sec 106." 9. The meaning to be assigned to the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding…

Shri Anuragraiji V. Goswami, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 1331/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1331/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Anuragraji V. Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. Yogesh B. Shah, Ward-5(1), Surat. 5/458, Haripura, Kaljug Street, Surat-395003 [Pan: Aajpt 4629 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

…age 2 of 8 intention to not abide by provision of the law. Therefore, the assessee has seek to pardon for the same and the delay may kindly be condoned. 3. The ld. counsel further placing reliance on the decision of N. Balakrishanan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and others 167 ITR 471 (SC). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As far as the issue of condonation of delay is concerned, it is settled law that the Court are quasi-judicial bodies are empowered to condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the co…

Marie Gold Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2838/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., 21St Floor, Nirmal Vs. (Central)-4, 10Th Floor, Room. No. Building, Nariman Point, 1001, Cgo Building, Annexe, M.K. Mumbai-400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaecm7896B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Narendra Singh Jangpangi, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…e above, the Ld. counsel drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the Director Mr. Arif Fazlani and Senior Manager Taxation Mr. Mahesh Patankar. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji 167 ITR 471 (SC), it is explained by him that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in interest of justice. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (…

M D Industries Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Surat

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 527/SRT/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 245H

…d not due to any inaction on the part of the appellant. 15. In this connection, the appellant places reliance upon the following decisions: (i) Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)]: (ii) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Ramamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123]: (iii) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Anr. v. Godawaribai [1999 (2) Mh. L.J. 273]: (iv) Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT [248ITR 681 (Mad)]: (v) Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] (vi) Nicco Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [251 ITR 791, 798-799 (Cal)] (vii) J.M. Bhansali and Ors v. The State of Madras (21 STC 411) (viii) C…