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

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

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

ITA 1743/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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…

M/S Valco Industries Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT-CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CHANDI/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 125/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Valco Industries Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Sco 37, Sector 26, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv5195J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Monga, CA
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. 125/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Valco Industries Ltd., Vs The DCIT, SCO 37, Sector 26, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACV5195J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue by : Shri Yogesh Monga, CA Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PE…

Pinkal Sureshkumar Kothari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1303/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1303/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Pinkal Sureshkumar Income Tax Officer Kothari Ward-5(2)(1), Vs. 4, Nemrajul Flat, Ahmedabad Navavikas Gruh Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amlpk3944L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parth Mehta, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 250(2)

…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.” 9. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court have in case of N. Balakrishnan Vs M Krishnamurthy ((1998) 7 SCC 123) promulgated that ITA No.1303/Ahd/2025 [Pinkal Sureshkumar Kothari vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 4 – "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 lega…

Starpoint Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 340/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

…downloading of order from the portal is taken as date of receipt of the order then there is no delay. G. In view of the above facts the appellants submits that the delay was unintentional, for bonafide reasons. H. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Court made the following observations: “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. Sometimes…

Shri. Balaji Vividodeeshagala Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 827/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

…Ors [167 ITR 471 (SC)] has held that a litigant ordinarily does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. . Page 8 of 9 Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that the length of delay is not material; what matters is whether the explanation offered is reasonable and bona fide. The Courts have consistently followed a liberal approach in condoning delay, provided there is no mala fide intention. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee…

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4232/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

…a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late" and courts must not adopt a pedantic approach to delay if the explanation is bona fide and not tainted with malafide or gross negligence." Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it was clarified that a cause of delay which is bona fide and reasonable cannot be equated with an excuse. An excuse implies carelessness or indifference, while a sufficient cause implies an unavoidable and justified impediment, which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accor…

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4231/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

…a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late" and courts must not adopt a pedantic approach to delay if the explanation is bona fide and not tainted with malafide or gross negligence." Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it was clarified that a cause of delay which is bona fide and reasonable cannot be equated with an excuse. An excuse implies carelessness or indifference, while a sufficient cause implies an unavoidable and justified impediment, which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accor…

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4230/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

…a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late" and courts must not adopt a pedantic approach to delay if the explanation is bona fide and not tainted with malafide or gross negligence." Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it was clarified that a cause of delay which is bona fide and reasonable cannot be equated with an excuse. An excuse implies carelessness or indifference, while a sufficient cause implies an unavoidable and justified impediment, which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accor…

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4229/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

…a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late" and courts must not adopt a pedantic approach to delay if the explanation is bona fide and not tainted with malafide or gross negligence." Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it was clarified that a cause of delay which is bona fide and reasonable cannot be equated with an excuse. An excuse implies carelessness or indifference, while a sufficient cause implies an unavoidable and justified impediment, which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accor…

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4228/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

…a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late" and courts must not adopt a pedantic approach to delay if the explanation is bona fide and not tainted with malafide or gross negligence." Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it was clarified that a cause of delay which is bona fide and reasonable cannot be equated with an excuse. An excuse implies carelessness or indifference, while a sufficient cause implies an unavoidable and justified impediment, which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accor…

Birla Pacific Medspa Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4227/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara- A.Y. 2009-10 - A.Y. 2010-11 - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14 - A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hrushikesh JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(5)

…a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late" and courts must not adopt a pedantic approach to delay if the explanation is bona fide and not tainted with malafide or gross negligence." Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it was clarified that a cause of delay which is bona fide and reasonable cannot be equated with an excuse. An excuse implies carelessness or indifference, while a sufficient cause implies an unavoidable and justified impediment, which is the case here.” 3. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions of the assessee. Accor…

Bhai Daya Singh Ji Bhai Himmat Singh Ji Nishkam Satsang Sabha Through Its Managing Trustee, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 258/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…ous risk. 6. It must be grasped that the judiciary 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." 23. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [2002] 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, t…

Bhai Daya Singh Ji Bhai Dharam Singh Ji Nishkam Satsang Sabha, Ludhiana vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 257/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…ous risk. 6. It must be grasped that the judiciary 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." 23. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [2002] 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, t…

Rajesh Singh Negi, Nanital vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(1) Nanital, Nanital

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 92/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Rajesh Singh Negi, Ward-2(3)(1), House No.50, Vs. Nanital. Jind State, Ward No.3, Nainital, Uttarakhand-263136 Pan-Aakpn3462D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca Department By Shri Aman Pal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10008911 Dated 13.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, From The Perusal Of The Appellate Order, It Is Seen That The Appeal Is Filed Delayed By 193 Days, For Which Delay Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Of Assessee Is Filed. In The Said Petition It Is Stated That The Assessee Was Under Bonafide Rajesh Singh Negi Vs. Ito Impression That The Counsel Of The Assessee Who Was Handling The Appeal Was Taken Care Of The Appellate Proceedings. However, Counsel Had Not Communicated The Status Of The Appeal, Therefore & When The Assessee Pursued Him, It Has Come To The Knowledge That The Appeal Was Already Dismissed Ex-Parte By Ld. Cit(A). Thus, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Had Occurred. It Was Further Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate & Solely Due To The Failure On The Part Of The Counsel To Communicate The Status & Out Come Of The Appeal Before Cit(A) In Timely Manner, Therefore, The Assessee Requested For Condonation Of Delay. In This Regard Reliance Is Also Placed In The Case Of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 Scc 123 (Sc) & Collector Of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 Itr 471 (Sc).

…t of the Counsel to communicate the status and out come of the appeal before CIT(A) in timely manner, therefore, the assessee requested for condonation of delay. In this regard reliance is also placed in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 (SC) and Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR objected to the condonation of delay. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the application of the condonation petition filed by the assessee, we find that the delay is not deliberate nor intenti…

Shree Karni Mata Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1214/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

…isk. 6. It must be grapped(sic) that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." (b) In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under: "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transf…

Shree Karni Mata Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptiion), Kolkata

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

ITA 1213/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

…isk. 6. It must be grapped(sic) that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." (b) In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under: "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transf…

Soofi Tyre Palace, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 151/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: lower authorities. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prem Parkash Aggarwal & ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 144

…essee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for the same very reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Keeping in mind the guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123), we admit the appeal. Further, accepting the prayer of Ld. AR, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication by way of speaking order with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(…

Shri Gurpreet Singh, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Moga

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 143/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prem Parkash Aggarwal & ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 144

…essee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for the same very reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Keeping in mind the guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123), we admit the appeal. Further, accepting the prayer of Ld. AR, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication by way of speaking order with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(…

Areca Global Associates Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/GTY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The

Section 154Section 250

…t maintainable on the grounds of delay.” 1.2 Further, aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: “A. Substantial Justice Over Procedural Lapses: The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 observed that a litigant should not suffer due to a professional's negligence and that procedural delays should not override the cause of justice. B. Financial Impact of Erroneous Tax Demand: I.T.A. No. 22/GTY/2025 Areca Global Associates Private Limited The unjustified tax addition significantly affects the financial position of the Appellant Co…

Ms. Geeta Bhatia, Khanna vs. Inome Tax Officer, Ward-5, Khanna

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 895/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 895/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Geeta Bhatia, The Ito, House No. 25, Narottam Nagar, Vs Ward-5, Near Railway Crossing, Khanna. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ajopb6752B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sayyam Garg & Ms. Anmol Gupta, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sayyam Garg & Ms. Anmol Gupta, AdvocatesFor 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. 895/CHD/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Geeta Bhatia, The ITO, House No. 25, Narottam Nagar, Vs Ward-5, Near Railway Crossing, Khanna. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AJOPB6752B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sayyam Garg & Ms. Anmol Gupta, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.20…