How many judgments cite Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer?

65 judgments on BharatTax cite Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (14 SCC 81), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 253(5), Section 249(3), Section 147, Section 1961, Section 144.

Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer

14 SCC 81Supreme Court of India2013#1735 most cited

What is Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer authority for?

Sufficient cause for condoning delay means an adequate and non-blameworthy reason that prevented a party from acting within the prescribed time, requiring an explanation that would satisfy a cautious person. It is not an elastic concept covering long, negligent, or stale claims.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer · sufficient cause · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · section 249(3) · section 253(5) · meaning of sufficient cause · adequate reason · limitation · appellate authority · bona fide mistake

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 253(5)Section 249(3)Section 147 Section 1961 Section 144 Section 68 Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 256 section 202 section 66 section 253(5)short deduction of tds section 248 section 253(3)bona fide mistake section 249(3)section 249(2)delay in filing appeal section 249

Judgments citing Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer

KSHATRIYA VIKAS PARISAD GUJARAT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 1109 days, the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay is dismissed

ITA 2485/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Mauli Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

…aw of limitation is founded on public policy and courts cannot extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds where no sufficient cause is shown for the delay. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 has further held that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be interpreted liberally in cases where the party has been negligent or has not acted with due diligence, and that where there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the court should not condone such delay. 10. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Co…

TIRUMALA RAO BATTU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 312/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.312/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2014-15) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) Tirumala Rao Battu 10-4-29/1, Kailash Nagar Visakhapatnam Gajuwaka S.O. Visakhapatnam – 530026 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: AFGPB4302R] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की…

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 494/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Audrey Bernice Roy Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(5) Plot No. 274, Sector – 3 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Opposite Hotel Vyasakhi Andhra Pradesh Parlour 2nd Lane, MVP Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: AOIPR5255C] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri M. Muralidhar, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Re…

SRIMAD VIRAT POTHULURI VEERABRAHMENDRA SWAMULAVARI MUTTAM,KADAPA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI

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

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate

Section 253(5)

…delay on a day-to-day basis, which is a well-recognized requirement in cases of inordinate delay. In this regard we have gone through para no. 15 of the order of Hon'ble Supremer Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, which is to the following effect: "15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case…

SRIMAD VIRAT POTTULURI VEERA BRAHMENDRA SWAMULA VARI MATTAM,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATHI

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

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

…delay on a day-to-day basis, which is a well-recognized requirement in cases of inordinate delay. In this regard we have gone through para no. 15 of the order of Hon’ble Supremer Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, which is to the following effect: Page 4 of 12 ITA No.1164 & 2287/Hyd/2025 Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam “15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which me…

KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

ITA 579/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.579/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2019-20) Vs. Kunkulagunta Mallikarjuna Rao Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) H.No. 32-13-20 Vijayawada Mogalrajapuram Andhra Pradesh B.M. Rao Street, Labbipeta Post Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh - 520010 [PAN: CAFPK2815J] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by :…

BODA RAMASATYANARAYANA,DRAKSHARAMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

ITA 532/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.532/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Boda Ramasatyanarayana 1/94, K.N.F. Road Kakinada Draksharamam East Godavari - 533001 East Godavari District - 533262 [PAN: AAIFB7327F] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri K.S.S. Sarma, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Sri K. Prasad, Sr.DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततत…

BABUGARI KAREEM BASHA,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1447/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: : Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR

…ppeal with a substantial delay of 437 days and even before this Tribunal has chosen not to appear on three consecutive dates of hearing. 6. Further, we observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 has held that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute and that courts cannot condone delay on sympathetic grounds alone. It was further held that the expression “sufficient cause” implies Page 5 of 7 Babugari Kareem Basha the presence of bona fides and reasonable diligence. It has also been held that…

JAYKRISHNA D PATHAK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8722/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjaykrishna D Pathak, Vs. Dcit 32(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra 17/23 Amina Mansion, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- Kolsa Mohalla Nakoda 400051. Street, Mumbai-400019. Pan/Gir No: Agnpp3108K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

…ber of decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024 held that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ITA No.8722/MUM/2025/AY 2013-14 Jaykrishna D Pathak 8. Th…

UTTAR BAHRTIIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7652/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10Section 250

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7651/MUM/2025(AY: 2018-19) & Uttar Bhartiiya Education vs. ITO, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Society. 1,1 Sharda Estate, L.T. Road, Vazira Naka, Borivali West, Mumbai-400091. PAN/GIR No: AAATU2069D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Kurpa Shah Respondent by Shri Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR) Date of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the orders…

UTTAR BHARTIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7651/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10Section 250

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7577/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…mber of decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024 held that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj (su…

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7576/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…number of decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024 held that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj (supra…

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7575/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7574/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7573/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

M/S. SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 4520/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S Sai Builders & Developers. B12, Ashiana, Plot No.15, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan/Gir No: Abbfs0092C (Appellant) Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-27. It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai-400703. (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Shri Shashank Mehta Shri Vivek Perampurna, Cit-Dr 07.01.2026 28.01.2026 Order Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘Act') By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-27 Dated 16.03.2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Cit, Mumbai-27 Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify, Amend Or Substitute All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal." 1

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 263

…ubsequent decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024, it has been held that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the 4 ITA No.4520/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 M/s Sai Builders and Developers ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodgin…

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DESAI ROAD vs. CIT (APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3207/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 250

…nmeans an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach\nappellate authority within limitation. In this connection, reference may be\nmade to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:\n(a) Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81:\n\"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed\nfor his absence. The meaning of the word \"sufficient\" is \"adequate\" or\n\"enough\", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended.\nTherefore, the word \"sufficient\" embraces no more than that which provides\na platitude, which when the act done suf…

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 640/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…arlu (D) vs. State of A.P. [2011 4 SCC 363(SC)] - iii) Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh [2010 8 SCC 685 (SC)] - iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy vs. Special Deputy Collector [2024 SCC Online SC 513 (SC)] - v) Basawaraj & Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [2013 14 SCC 81 (SC) - vi) Lala Mata Din vs. A. Narayan [AIR 1996 SC 1623 (SC)] Copies of all the judgments have already been submitted with our case law compilation submitted on 30-07-2025. Further, we have relied on in total 19 case laws submitted with the aforesaid compilation. In light of the above, it is most humbly prayed that the appeal filed by the asses…

VARITRA FOUNDATION,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, AMBALA, AMBALA

ITA 454/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: The Cit(A) On 14.12.2024 Against The Intimation Dated 27.11.2023 Issued Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Unaware Of The Said Intimation As The Registered Email Address Was Inaccessible & The Order Was Not Served Through Any Valid Mode Prescribed Under Law. The Assessee Contended That It Became Aware Of The Order Only Upon Receipt Of A Telephonic Communication From The Department

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 249(3)Section 282Section 5

…ne. IV. Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi [SC, dated 16.12.2021]: Stressed that limitation statutes must be strictly construed, and negligence or inaction cannot be condoned by adopting a liberal approach. V. Basawaraj v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81]: Held that delay cannot be condoned merely by imposing conditions if sufficient cause is not shown. VI. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)]: Although relied upon by the CIT(A), this decision supports a liberal approach to condonation where substantial justice is at stake. VII. State of U.P. v. Satish Chand Shivha…

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4