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 367,541 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

State Bank of India (Earlier Known As Sbbj), Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Ajmer

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

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. No. 173/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 State Bank of India बनाम Income Tax Officer (Earlier known as SBBJ) Vs. (TDS) Shastri Nagar, Ajmer. Ajmer. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: JDHS03287E निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, Advocate. राजस्…

Sharad Pandurang Kardile, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(5), Pune

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

ITA 2009/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2009/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chandan KatariyaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 133ASection 144Section 250Section 5

…he condonation of delay and placed reliance on the following decisions : 1. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 2. Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 253 ITR 798 (SC) 3. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the averments made in the condonation application. Hon’ble courts in plethora of judgments observed that when consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits…

Society for Child Development, New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 709/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalsociety For Child Development, Cit (Exemption), D-13, Kamla Nagar, Jawahar Delhi. Nagar, Shakti Nagar, Vs. North Delhi-110007. Pan-Aabts4111K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & Shr R.P. Mall, Adv. Department By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/05/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [Cit(E), In Short] In Din & Notice No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2023-24/1054933641(1) Dt. 08.08.2023 Rejecting The Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’).

Section 12A(1)(ac)

…in filing the present appeal Society for Child Development vs. CIT(E) and requested for the condonation of the delay. The assessee has also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M Krishna Murthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123. He further placed reliance on judgement of hon’ble Apex court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji reported in 167 ITR 471. 3. Per contra, ld. CIT DR stated that reasons stated by the assessee are general in nature and, therefore, delay should not be Condoned. 4. After considering the reasons stated and the judicial pronounce…

Bhagyalaxmi Steel Rolling Mill, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 253Section 270A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 360/Ahd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ Bhagyalaxmi Steel Rolling Income Tax Officer Mill Ward-1, Mehsana Vs. C/o Supreme Steel Syndicate, 1 Mal Godown, Mehsana - 384002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACFB9336N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Rushin Patel, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/05/2025 (आ…

Lalita Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2020-21 cuke Lalita Devi Sharma ITO, Vs. Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Ward-7(1), Harsaura, Baskhoh, Banskho, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ R…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Churu vs. ITO TDS-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 266/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5

…thereto. 8. 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…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Churu vs. ITO TDS-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 265/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Churu vs. ITO, TDS (3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 264/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5

…thereto. 8. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy(1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s C…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Churu vs. ITO(TDS)-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 263/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5

…thereto. 8. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy(1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s C…

Shree Hanuman Goshala Seva Samiti, Kota vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 954/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 12A

…ee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and 4 Shree Hanuman Goshala Seva Samiti vs. CIT(E) 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…

Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Kutch vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 163/RJT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2025 1 | Page

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR

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

…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…

Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Kutch vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/RJT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR

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

…s 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…

Shri Vyankanath Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha Murtizapur, Akola vs. ITO Ward - 2, Exemp, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 398/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

…be condoned. 4. Assessee places reliance on judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing of appeal on the facts and evidence on record. 3 Shri Vyankanath Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha Murtizapur ITA no.398/Nag./2024 i) (1998) 7 SCC 123 N. Balkrishnan vs. Krishna Murthy ii) AIR 2002 SC 1201 Ram Nath vs. Gobardhan Sao 5. Assessee places reliance on decision of ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. wherein delay of 2054 days was condoned in order dated 21/01/2020 as there was mistake of employee in office. Assessee places reliance on the decision of Hon'b…

M/S Phoenix Infra Estate International Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand dismissed in limine

ITA 161/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Purushotam SahuFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…ned. 16. In support of this application appellant is filing affidavit of Director Mr. Vijay Gautam. B. In view of the above facts the appellants submit that the delay was unintentional, for bona fide reasons. C. In N. Balakrishnan V/s. 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 written a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion, sometime…

Gaurav Goyal (HUF), Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Mathura

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/AGR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.217/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Gaurav Goyal (Huf) Ito Ward 1(3)(1) बनाम/ D-63,64, Shri Radhapuram Mathura Vs. Krishna Nagar, Mathura – 281 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafhg-3017-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…pleaded for admission of first appeal and also sought another opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case. The Ld. Sr. DR has opposed any interference in the impugned order. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123) held that condonation of delay is matter of discretion of the court. The delay of very long range could be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory. The primary objective is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advocate substantial justice. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are mean…

Sucram Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1325/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1325/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sucram Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Ito बनाम/ H-37-J, 2Nd Floor, Manthoppu Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aakcs-2196-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lekha (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. D. Babitha (Jcit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. D. Babitha (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…-id of counsel was mentioned in Form No.35. Consequently, the appeal went unrepresented. The Ld. AR pleaded for disposal of appeal on merits which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123) held that condonation of delay is matter of discretion of the court. The delay of very long range could be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory. The primary objective is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advocate substantial justice. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are mean…

Sri. Chowdry, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Mysore

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

ITA 2418/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 250Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sri Chowdry, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gopalakrishnasetty Narayan, Ward – 2(3), No.1146, Amruteshwara, Mysore. Siddarthanagar, Mysore – 570 011. PAN – AAYPN 6905 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept. Date of hearing : 16.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi da…

Kanchi Periyava Trust-Mysore, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Bengalauru

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

ITA 1320/BANG/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)

…ys caused due to a genuine and bona fide mistake. 8. Furthermore, such a delay does not reflect negligence or mala fide intent but rather a genuine cause beyond the assessee’s control. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy* [1998] 7 SCC 123, also held that: - The length of the delay is not as material, if the explanation is reasonable and does not indicate deliberate negligence, the delay should be condoned. 9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the delay in the present case deserves to be condoned and accordingly, the delay of 50 . ITA No.1319 & 1320/Bang/2024 Page 4…

Kanchi Periyava Trust-Mysore, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1319/BANG/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)

Poorna Pragna House Building Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2423/BANG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Assessment Years : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

…al advice, the assessee promptly filed the appeal. Such a delay does not . Page 4 of 5 reflect negligence or mala fide intent but a genuine cause beyond the control of the assessee. 8.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 held that: • Length of delay is not as material as the acceptability of the explanation for such delay. • If the explanation is reasonable and does not indicate deliberate negligence, delay should be condoned. 8.4 Considering these legal principles, the approach of the CIT-A in dismissing the appeal purely on technical grounds without examining the…