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 367,607 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

Shri Devendra Thakershibhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.587/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2913-14 Devendra Thakershibhai The Ito बनाम/ Thakkar Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Prop. Of Prism Agri Ahmedabad – 380 015 Tradelink Ravjipura Nava Bazar, Bavla Tal: Dascroi Ahmedabad – 380 057 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aospt 8109 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 145(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “सी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद" के सम"। ] ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.587/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2913-14 Devendra Thakershibhai The ITO बनाम/ Thakkar Ward-3(2)(1) v/s. Prop. Of PRISM AGRI Ahmedabad – 380 015 TRADELINK Ravjipura Nava Bazar, Bavla Tal: Dascroi Ahmedabad – 380 057 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AOSPT 8109 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee b…

Bg Professional Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 743/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 12ASection 80G

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

Bg Professional Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 713/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 12ASection 80G

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

Kapil Stone Crushing Co, Kalka Ji, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2698/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2698और 2697/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2009-10और 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Minal Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance justice when there is no inaction, negligence or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, where there was a delay of 883 days in filing of application for setting aside ex-parte decree; on application for condonation of delay, the trial court found the reasoning given for condoning of delay sufficient and condoned the delay, the matter traveled to the Hon’ble High 4 ITA Nos. 2698 & 2697/DEL/2024 (A.Ys.2009-10 &2011-12) Court. The Hon’…

Kapil Stone Crushing Co, Kalka Ji, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi - 110002, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2697/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2698और 2697/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2009-10और 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Minal Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance justice when there is no inaction, negligence or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, where there was a delay of 883 days in filing of application for setting aside ex-parte decree; on application for condonation of delay, the trial court found the reasoning given for condoning of delay sufficient and condoned the delay, the matter traveled to the Hon’ble High 4 ITA Nos. 2698 & 2697/DEL/2024 (A.Ys.2009-10 &2011-12) Court. The Hon’…

Pragna Kirti Kedia, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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 2861/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Pragna Kirti Kedia, Nfac, Delhi C 302, Waterford Building Above Vs. Navnit Motors Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Adwpk 9701 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra Mahajan. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Shah
Section 143(3)Section 24

…the case of Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) and in the Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) case of N. Balakrishna v. M. Ramamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 N. Balakrishna v. M. Ramamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123. N. Balakrishna v. M. Ramamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 Accordingly, he submitted that appeal might be treated as within Accordingly, he submitted that appeal might be treated as within Accordingly, he submitted that appeal might be treated as within the limitation period in view of the d the limitation pe…

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

…ia Ltd a) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) reported in 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) – delay of 1754 days condoned b) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) – delay of 883 days condoned c) Decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) – delay of 2984 days condoned d) Decision of Hon‘ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs K S P Shanmugavel Nadar reported in 30 taxman 133 (Mad) – delay of 20 years condoned e) Decision of Delhi Tribunal i…

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

…ia Ltd a) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) reported in 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) – delay of 1754 days condoned b) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) – delay of 883 days condoned c) Decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) – delay of 2984 days condoned d) Decision of Hon‘ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs K S P Shanmugavel Nadar reported in 30 taxman 133 (Mad) – delay of 20 years condoned e) Decision of Delhi Tribunal i…

Om Prakash Agrawal HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaiupr, Jaipur

ITA 967/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…thereto. 6. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel. whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s C…

Be Positive Sansthan, Jaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 126/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2024AY 2023-24
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 12ASection 80G

…thereto. 6. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel. whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s C…

Be Positive Sansthan, Jaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 125/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2024AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 12ASection 80G

…thereto. 6. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel. whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s C…

Mayur Global Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 906/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 154Section 234A

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

Sunita Mohan Patil, Nashik vs. ACIT 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi
Section 5

…ao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows : “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but 3 they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. It held that there is no presumptio…

Anant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-4, Pune

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

ITA 636/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.636/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Vs. Pr.Cit-4, Maryadit, Pune Ist Floor, Panbajar Building, Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market Yard, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411 037 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaaa4259L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 263Section 5

…lacking in bonafides. (iii) The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows : “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Greaves Saommha Kamgar Sahakari Path Pedhi Maryadit, Pune vs. Pr. CIT-3, Pune

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

ITA 345/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 5

…lacking in bonafides. (iii) The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows : “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Suva Lal Paharia, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 5

…thereto. 6. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s C…

Shri Mahakali Petroleum, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

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

ITA 815/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Mahakali Petroleum Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Through Its Proprietor Patan. Rajnikant Kantilal Patel 2, Laxminagar Society Nr.Sharda Society St Workshop Road Mehsana 384 002. Pan : Aagfs 5696 C.

Section 250

…lication 4 before the ld. CIT(A) and was pursuing the alternate remedy of rectification of the order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v/s. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein it was held that, in absence of anything showing malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, delay should normally be condoned. It further held that, length of delay is not relevant and acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion and that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. Th…

Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 107/IND/2024[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 8Section 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…

K.C.A. Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 285/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

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

…to be caused was not intentional rather due to the honest and bona fide belief. Hence, prayed to admit the appeal by condoning the delay. He has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in [1998] 7 SCC 123. 2.1. The ld. D/R did not raise much emphasis on the condonation petition of the assessee. 2.2. We have perused the application of the condonation petition and it appears to us that the assessee has filed an application u/s 80G of the Act which was rejected. The assessee again re-applied for the registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act which was also rej…

K.C.A. Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 284/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 12ASection 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…ther due to the honest and bona fide belief. Hence, condonation petition should be allowed and assessee to be permitted to place his case. He has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in [1998] 7 SCC 123. 2.1. The ld. D/R did not raise much emphasis on the condonation petition of the assessee. 2.2. We have perused the application of the condonation petition and it appears to us that the assessee has filed an application u/s 80G of the Act which was rejected. The assessee again re-applied for the registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act which was also rej…