How many judgments cite Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy?

368 judgments on BharatTax cite Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 147, Section 250, Section 253(5), Section 148.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 249(3)section 249 section 253 delay in filing appeal condonation of delay section 24 registration under section 12a section 80g(5)reasonable cause section 80g section 12ab

Judgments citing Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

Bachraj Chhotelal Mehta, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), 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 529/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Bachraj Chhotelal Mehta, Ito Ward-2(3)(8), C-3, 3Rd Floor, Antwerp Park, 619, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Apartment, Kansara Sheri, Vs. Gate, Mahidharpura, Surat-395001. Surat-395003. Pan No. Afrpm 7809 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Jay Thakkar, CA

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156

…the very threshold, thus defeating the cause of justice. out at the very threshold, thus defeating the cause of justice. 3.2 The same principle was reiter The same principle was reiterated in N. Balakrishnan v. M. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], where the Apex Court held that [(1998) 7 SCC 123], where the Apex Court held that [(1998) 7 SCC 123], where the Apex Court held that the length of delay is not material so long as the explanation offered the length of delay is not material so long as the explanation offered the length of delay is not material so long as the explanation offered is…

Ispatam Metals, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Wad-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result all the grounds raised on merits of the addition made are dismissed

ITA 292/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DivetiaFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R

Section 250

…that there was sufficient cause for the delay of 69 days in filing of the present appeal before us and noting the settled position of law with regard to the condonation of delay as held by the Apex Court in cases of N. Balkrishnan V. M. Krishnamurty, (1998) (7 SCC 123) and B. Madhuri Goud V.B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 SC 693,since sufficient cause has been adduced by the assessee for the delay, the same needs to be condoned to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the delay in filing of present appeal of 69 days is condoned. 4. Taking up the appeal for adjudication the grounds raised read as under:- “1.1 The o…

Ishan Arora, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 669/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69C

…sition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) The Honorable Supreme Court held that substantial justice should not be defeated by technical considerations. Liberal approach to be taken in condonation of delay. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 Apex Court held that the length of delay is immaterial: sufficiency of cause is the real test. Delay caused due to bona fide reasons must be condoned. Mrs. T. Porkodi v. Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court, 2025) High Court condoned a delay of 288 days where the assessee was unaware of the order and circumstances were beyond control. State…

Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Mori, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 405/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 405/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Vs ITO, Ward -1(1) Mori Hari Kunj, Station Road Vata Faliyu, Sardarpura, Baruch. jambusar, Baruch, Gujarat PAN – BPAPM0727E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hemant Suthar, CA Revenue by Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order…

M/S. Nitaben Bharatkumar Parekh, Surat vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-2, Chennai

In the result, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 731/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 M/S Nitaben Bharatkumar Add/Jcit(A)-2, Chennai, Parekh, Surat. 33 Royal Bunglows, Opp. Laxmi Vs. Bunglows Vesu Surat-395007. Pan No. Adlpp 7174 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Uke, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ronak Parekh, AR

Section 115BSection 5Section 69A

…bmissions and perused the material available on record. It is a settled principle of law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. A liberal approach is warranted while considering applications for condonation of delay, provided the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or deliberate inaction. 3.1. In the present cas…

Jap Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Previously ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1609/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…ce substantial justice. The Hon’ble Court emphasized that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], it was held that length of delay is not material, so long as the explanation is bona fide and not tainted with mala fides or dilatory intent. 5. In the present case, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The delay of 603 days has been explained sat…

Heena G Jain, Chennai vs. ACIT/DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2058/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2025 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shrey Kumar M. Jain, C.A GHFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)

…e 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......... Heena G. Jain :- 8 -: 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, wh…

Ajar Amar Steels 1725 10G, 3-A, Focal Point Ludhiana 141010, Punjab vs. The PCIT (Central) Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 950/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 950/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ajar Amar Steels, Vs The Pcit (Central), 1725 10G, 3-A, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaefa8866A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 40Section 5

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 950/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ajar Amar Steels, Vs The PCIT (Central), 1725 10G, 3-A, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAEFA8866A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PE…

Shri Krishna Enterprise, Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Shri Krishna Enterprise Vs. The Ito, Ward-1 (Partnership Firm) Nadiad. Gf, Snri Krishna Palace Dabhan Chokdi, Dabhan Nadiad, Gujarat. Pan : Acwfs 6389 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 144

…TR 471) laid down that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold. Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it was held that the length of delay is not decisive, but the acceptability of the explanation is what matters. 3.1 In the present case, the explanation tendered by the assessee appears bona fide. With the advent of e-proceedings, it is not uncommon for small-town taxpayers to face genuine difficulties in receiving electronic communications and i…

Sanjeev Garg, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Kurukshetra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 871/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 871/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sanjeev Garg, The Ito, House No. 297, Sector 13, Vs Kurukshetra. U.E., Kurukshetra. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afspg0180L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Navneet Singal, Ca & Shri Rittun Sahuwala, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Singal, CA and Shri Rittun Sahuwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 871/CHD/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sanjeev Garg, The ITO, House No. 297, Sector 13, Vs Kurukshetra. U.E., Kurukshetra. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFSPG0180L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Navneet Singal, CA and Shri Rittun Sahuwala, CA Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 HYB…

Azb and Partner, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 195Section 263

…AT. Considering that the appeal fee was duly paid within the statutory period, the bona fides of the assessee cannot be doubted. 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…

Seva Bharti Samiti Sanganer Jaipur, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 790/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalseva Bharti Samiti Sanganer Jaipur, 68, Rameshwar Colony, Tonk Road, Sanganer Bazar, S.O. Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 Pan No.: Abmas 2614L ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Vedant Agarwal, Adv. Ld. AR (ThroFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 12ASection 5

…Sanganer Jaipur Limitation Act, a liberal and pragmatic approach is to be adopted to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has laid down that unless mala fides or gross negligence are established, delay supported by bona fide reasons should ordinarily be condoned so that matters are adjudicated on merits rather than dismissed on technicalities of limitation. In the present case, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was occasioned due to reasonable cause…

Abhishek Agarwal, Dehradun vs. ITO, W01(1)(1), Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/DDN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.104/Ddn/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Abhishek Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, Near Town Area Office, Ward-1(1)(1), Doiwala, Distt Dehradun, Vs. Dehradun. Uttarakhand-248140. Pan-Alzpa7733L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH (‘SMC’): DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.104/DDN/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Abhishek Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, Near Town Area Office, Ward-1(1)(1), Doiwala, Distt Dehradun, Vs. Dehradun. Uttarakhand-248140. PAN-ALZPA7733L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajiv Sahni, CA Department by Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: Both the appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Lea…

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

…condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and should have decided the same on merit. He also relied on the following decisions: i) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) ii) N. Balkrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 iii) State of Nagaland vs. Lipuk A.O. 2005 (183) E.L.T. 337 (SC) iv) Earthmetal Electricals (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 4 SOT 484 (Mum) v) Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank vs. CBDT vi) Vijay V. Megahni vs. DCIT vide ITA No.493 of 2015 and 508 of 2015, order dated 19.09.2017 10. He accordingly submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before the L…

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1242/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

Devi Dayal, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…ce on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 5. Similarly, we would like to make reference to authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 dated 03.09.1998. It reads as under: “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…

Kulbir Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Mohali

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

ITA 1240/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1240/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kulbir Singh, The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate V Ward 6(4), # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. S Mohali. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Butps5735C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1240/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kulbir Singh, The ITO, C/o Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate V Ward 6(4), # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. s Mohali. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BUTPS5735C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025…

Ravinanda Landmarks Unit 3, Pune vs. ITO, Wrd-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1347/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 226(3)

…condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and should have decided the same on merit. He also relied on the following decisions: i) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) ii) N. Balkrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 iii) State of Nagaland vs. Lipuk A.O. 2005 (183) E.L.T. 337 (SC) iv) Earthmetal Electricals (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 4 SOT 484 (Mum) v) Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank vs. CBDT vi) Vijay V. Megahni vs. DCIT vide ITA No.493 of 2015 and 508 of 2015, order dated 19.09.2017 11. He accordingly submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have condoned the…

S.S. Rangasamy Raja, Rajapalayam vs. ITO, TDS Ward, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1744/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1743 & 1744/Chny/2025 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 200A

…e 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…