Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer

14 SCC 81Supreme Court of India2013#1734 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.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 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 250Section 253(5)Section 249(3)Section 147Section 1961Section 144Section 68Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 256section 202section 66section 253(5)short deduction of tdssection 248section 253(3)bona fide mistakesection 249(3)section 249(2)delay in filing appealsection 249

Judgments citing Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer

Shilpaben Nileshbhai Gami, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Shilpaben Nieshbhai Gami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Omkarnagar Society, Ward 3(1)(5), Near Jalaram Temple, Bardoli- Surat 394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp 8678 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 31/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 as well as the decision in the cases of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81, it is prayed to allow the present appeal. 4. Shri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and No.2 – appellants before the High Court, has supported the impugned order passed by the High Court allowing the application for condonation of delay and condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. 4.1 It is submitt…

M/S. Rmz Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…t in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.7696/2021 disposed of on 16.12.2021 relying on the judgment of the said Court in the case of Basavaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013)14 SCC 81 has observed as under: "The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party." It is further observed that, "Even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute." It is further ob…

Ram Bharose Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

…of the Special Bench and in case its views are contradictory to the views of the Third Member, preference is required to be given to the Special Bench. 4.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 1 has held as follows: "5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, there was a delay of 5-1/2 years in filing the said appeals under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court. The only explanation offered for approaching the court at such a belated stage has been…

Srei Alternative Investment Managers Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, (International Taxation), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 384/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Dubey, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 206A

…e by OECD and UN commentary by inserting section 90(2A) in the IT Act with effect from A.Y 2016­17 which overrules section 90(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. Versus The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 1 had held that “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. “ The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the…

Vijay Fabrics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, application for condonation of delay is dismissed, hence the present appeal is filed by the assessee is also dismissed as barred by limitation

ITA 5536/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2002-03 Vijay Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 4(3)(2), 213, 2Nd Floor, Marina Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Dr. Cawasji Homji Street, Vs. Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aaacv2774R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ishwer Prakash RathiFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Dhondial (DR)
Section 143Section 80H

…reasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious mater and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a 4 Page 5 nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.” (See also: Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81) 11. The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitat…