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

Sunny Vijay Lakhani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 28(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6948/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (SR DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Aggarwal
Section 68

…antial liberal approach in condoning delays where substantial liberal approach in condoning delays where substantial justice is at stake. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan justice is at stake. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 further held that (1998) 7 SCC 123 further held that v. M. Krishnamurthy length of delay is immaterial so long as the explanation is length of delay is immaterial so long as the explanation is satisfactory and the conduct bona fide. satisfactory and the conduct bona fide. 5.3 Applying these principles, we find that the delay is Applying these prin…

Sunny Vijay Lakhani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6947/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (SR DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Aggarwal
Section 68

…antial liberal approach in condoning delays where substantial liberal approach in condoning delays where substantial justice is at stake. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan justice is at stake. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 further held that (1998) 7 SCC 123 further held that v. M. Krishnamurthy length of delay is immaterial so long as the explanation is length of delay is immaterial so long as the explanation is satisfactory and the conduct bona fide. satisfactory and the conduct bona fide. 5.3 Applying these principles, we find that the delay is Applying these prin…

Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1298/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1298/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 22, Brb Basu Road, 1St Floor, Room No.14, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaics 4667 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 13.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belated By 136 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay. The Contents Of The Application Are As Under :- Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench Ref: Appeal Petition Filed On: In The Matter Of : - An Application For Condonation Of The Delay In Filing The Memorandum Of Appeal Against The Appellate Order Dated 13-11- 2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-2017; & In The Matter Of The :- A Memorandum Of Appeal Filed Under The Income Tax Act, 1961; & In The Matter Of: -

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘एसएमसी’ "यायपीठ,कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1298/KOL/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Vs ITO Ward-5(1), Kolkata 22, BRB Basu Road, 1st Floor, Room No.14, Kolkata-700001 PAN No. :AAICS 4667 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, AR राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025…

Gayatri Sewa Sansthan, Uttar Pradesh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the assessee will get relief of INR 90 Lakhs of the loan taken from M/s

ITA 3978/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Gayatri Sewa Sansthan Vs Dcit 155, G.T.Road, Circle-2(1)(1) Panchwati Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad U.P-201001. Pan-Aaatg1960H Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Shivam Gupta, Adv. & Deepashree Rao, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of 19.11.2025 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 250

…on the following judgments in support of his claim:- (i) Vedabai Alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patial 253 ITR 798 (SC); (ii) Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471 (SC); (iii) N Balakrishnan vs M.Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 (SC); and (iv) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2395 of 2008 (SC). 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that assessee is habitual defaulter and despite of repeated opportunities, details have not been filed before the AO nor before ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the delay should not be condoned. 4.…

Ambar Resources Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1569/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 249Section 69C

…upreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail and that technical considerations should not defeat adjudication on merits. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Court held that the primary consideration is whether the explanation for delay is bona fide. Similarly, in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786, the Supreme Court reiterated that denial of condonation should be an exception rather than a rule, especially where refusal leads to denial of justice. Further, several ITAT de…

Aareev Foundation, Vadodara vs. CIT(E), Ahemdabad

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

ITA 1502/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parth Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 253(5)

…eral and justice-oriented approach must be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay, and that substantial justice deserves to prevail over technical considerations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 has held that length of delay is not material and that acceptability of the explanation is the only relevant criterion. Further, in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786, it was reiterated that when there is no allegation of mala fides or dilatory tactics, courts must adopt a pragmatic and liberal view toward condonation. 5.…

Shri Bhavnagar Dashashrimali Kanthibandh (Vaishnav) Vanik Gnati, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 135/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, AR
Section 12ASection 14Section 253(5)

…ourt further observed that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of mala fides, and that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly. 2.6 Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that the length of delay is not material; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. Applying these settled principles, we find that the reaso…

Shri Bhavnagar Dashashrimali Kanthibandh (Vaishnav) Vanik Gnati, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 134/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 14Section 253(5)

…Court further observed that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of mala fides, and that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly. 2.6 Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that the length of delay is not material; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. Applying these settled principles, we find that the reason…

Primary Health Centre Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 764/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

…one under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 31. In the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, (2011) 4 SCC 363, this Court made the following observations: “20. In N. Balakrishnan, [(1998) 7 SCC 123] this Court again reiterated the principle that: (SCC p. 127, para 11) “11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that [the] parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.” 21 to 27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelle…

Primary Health Centre Kunnamanagalam Kozhikode, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 763/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

…one under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 31. In the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, (2011) 4 SCC 363, this Court made the following observations: “20. In N. Balakrishnan, [(1998) 7 SCC 123] this Court again reiterated the principle that: (SCC p. 127, para 11) “11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that [the] parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.” 21 to 27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelle…

Primary Health Centre Kunnamangalam Kozhikode, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 762/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

…one under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 31. In the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, (2011) 4 SCC 363, this Court made the following observations: “20. In N. Balakrishnan, [(1998) 7 SCC 123] this Court again reiterated the principle that: (SCC p. 127, para 11) “11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that [the] parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.” 21 to 27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelle…

Primary Health Centre Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 761/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

…one under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 31. In the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, (2011) 4 SCC 363, this Court made the following observations: “20. In N. Balakrishnan, [(1998) 7 SCC 123] this Court again reiterated the principle that: (SCC p. 127, para 11) “11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that [the] parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.” 21 to 27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelle…

Malini Jignesh Doshi, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/AHD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.755/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Malini Jignesh Doshi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-104, Sugam Avenue, Ward-5(3)(1), Vikas Gruh Road, Ahmedabad Opp. Mahalaxmi Complex, Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007 [PAN No.AGZPD5058Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ankit Choksi, AR Respondent by: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR 03.11.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 06.11.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the As…

Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 71/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.71/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ Kishan Cowk Ward-1(3)(1) V/S. Piplav, Anand – 388 460 Petlad – 388 450 Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bixpp 2069 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Darshan Belani, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 29/09/2022 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case By Upholding The Addition Amounting To Rs.23.30,500/- Made As Unexplained Investments In Case Of The Appellant For Ay 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add/Alter Or Amend Any Of The Ground Of Appeal.” Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Belani, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 250Section 253(5)

…: 2011-12 further observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 / [1999] 1 SCR 963 held that the length of the delay is not material; what matters is the acceptability of the explanation offered. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides and is otherwise reasonable, the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice. In the present case, considering the facts and circumstances narrated in the affidav…

Axiomatic Itech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 191/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…s for condonation of delay and that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Further reliance has been placed on N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties but to ensure that remedies are sought without unreasonable delay, and that when sufficient cause is shown, delay should ordinarily be condoned. Similarly, in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy [(2012) 12 SCC 693], the Hon’ble Supre…

Menaba Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

ITA 1361/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1361/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Menaba Charitable Trust The Ito बनाम/ 26, Mahavir Jain Soc., Ward-1 (Exemptions) V/S. Bapunagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 024 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatm 2171 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 250

…d view cannot be said to be willful, negligent, or lacking in good faith. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], we are inclined to Menaba Charitable Trust vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 adopt a liberal approach and hold that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 118 days in filing the present appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 8. On merits, we find that the learned CIT(App…

Anjanna Chattopadhyay, Wadala vs. Income Tax Officer 15 1 4 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5009/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 45

…ssessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 933 days and has a sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly before the ITAT. We place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 / (1998) 7 SCC 123, dated 03/09/1998, wherein it was held as under: “Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to ensure 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. The law of limitation fixes a l…

Usman Vali Patel, Bharuch Gujarat vs. Ward 1(2), Income Tax Officer, Bharuch

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

ITA 183/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Usman Vali Patel, Vs. Ito, A-14 Assd Park, Near Khwaja Ward – 1(2), Township, Bharuch - 392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aykpp8165B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Krutarth Desai, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

…igence. The delay caused due to genuine and Bonafide reasons is required to be condoned in the interest of justice and equity. He relied upon various decision in cases of (i) Rafiq C.Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400, (ii) N.Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, (iii) B. Mahdhuri Goud vs. B.Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 SCC 693 and (iv) Emsons Organics Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2020) 113 taxmann.com 269 (Chd – Trib.). He also relied on the decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. vs. ACIT, 157 taxmann.com 416 (SC). He has prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on…

Laxman Singh Solanki (Firm), Pali vs. ITO, Pali

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

ITA 795/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 194C

…ced reliance upon the following judicial precedents to contend that the expression “sufficient cause” deserves a liberal interpretation: 1. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) 2. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 3. Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786 He thus prayed that the delay be condoned and the matter remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits. 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee had been non-compliant throughout the reassessment proceedings despite mul…

Sumitlal, Surat vs. ITO, Surat

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

ITA 545/SRT/2025[201011]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sumitlal, Ito 101-B/2, Sanskrut Flats Umra, Aayakar Bhavan, Bharthana, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395007 Pan No. Acxpl 1238 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nitin Paharia, CA&
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

…ntial justice must prevail over technical considerations. The same principle has been reiterated in considerations. The same principle has been reiterated in considerations. The same principle has been reiterated in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], wherein it [(1998) 7 SCC 123], wherein it Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna was held that a liberal approach is warranted when refusal to was held that a liberal approach is warranted when refusal to was held that a liberal approach is warranted when refusal to condone delay may result in miscarriage of justice. condone delay may result in miscarriage o…