Bharat Auto Center v. CIT

282 ITR 366High Court2006#6967 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 144 Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 271(1)(c)Section 5 of the Limitation Act Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

condonation of delay speaking order opportunity of being heard section 250 section 144 section 25 prescribed appeal before the tribunal interest nfac document

Judgments citing Bharat Auto Center v. CIT

SHRI BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,VILLAGE MEGHPAR, TAL. ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH

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

ITA 418/RJT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.418 & 388/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) Pan : Apepr3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.418 & 388/RJT/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) PAN : APEPR3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, ld.AR राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR सुनवाई क" ता…

BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,ANJAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

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

ITA 388/RJT/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2025AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

ARVINDKUMAR DAYALAL CHAVDA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (2) (3), RAJKOT

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

ITA 841/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 841/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20) Arvindkumar Dayalal Chavda Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(2)(3), Rajkot 3 – Nilay, Maruti Nagar, Opp. New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Krishnam Appartment, Airport Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzpc0502D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kumar Pandya, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246Section 250

…‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor ITA. 841/Rjt/2024 AY.2019-20 Arvindkumar D. Chavda inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the applicant [Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366]. We note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the part delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) has occurred due to COVID-19 pandemic disease and for rest delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has explained the sufficient cause.Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay cond…

VINODBHAI RAVJIBHAI SAKHIYA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.182/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vinod Ravjibhai Sakhiya, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Shivam, 4-Radha Nagar, B/H. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360 004 Bhavan, Race Course, Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Blqps 0262 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250

…h the court within limitation. 5. However, the words ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the applicant [Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366]. Thus, mistake of the lawyer or accountant/ tax consultant may be a good reason for condoning delay. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the d…

SUDHIR YADAV,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(5), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 82/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘SMC’ AGRA (Through Physical/Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Sudhir Yadav, Income Tax Officer, No.12, Lawyers Colony, Agra, Ward-1(1)(5), Uttar Pradesh-282005 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 PAN-ABBPY6296J Appellant Respondent Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Shailender Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.04.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is direc…

CITIZENS WELFARE ASSOCIATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEM. CIRCLE 1 , MUMBAI

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

ITA 92/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarcitizen Welfare Association Vs. Ito(E), Circle – 1 46, Prabhat Bldg, Warden Room No. 601, 6Th Road, Mumbai – 400026. Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Bldg, Pedder Road, Ld.Dr. Gopirao Deshmukh Marg, Cumbala Hill, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaatc4056C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

…ring the facts as mentioned in un-rebutted affidavit and also keeping in view the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case following cases: 1. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Kitiji (Mst) (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) . 2. Bharat Auto Centre Vs. CIT 282 ITR 366 3. Balakrishnan (N) Vs. Krishnamurthy (M.) (1998) 7 SCC.123 4. Vedabai Alias Vijayantabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, [2022] 253 ITR 798 (SC). 3. We condone the delay in filing the present appeal and consequently admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before the CIT(A)…

PURVA CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERING PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 51/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarpurva Constructions & Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(2)(1) Engineering Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, 109 Wakefield House, Sprott Mumbai – 400 020. Road, Ballard Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacp6600Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

…detailed affidavit. Therefore considering this fact and also keeping in view the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case following cases: 1. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Kitiji (Mst) (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) . 2. Bharat Auto Centre Vs. CIT 282 ITR 366 3. Balakrishnan (N) Vs. Krishnamurthy (M.) (1998) 7 SCC.123 4. Vedabai Alias Vijayantabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, [2022] 253 ITR 798 (SC). 3. Keeping in view of the above facts, we condone thdelay of 35 days in filing the present appeal and consequently the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3 Purva Constructions & En…

VIPULBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI RAMANI,AT VIRNAGAR, TAL. JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD- 2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

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

ITA 833/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 833/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Vipulbhai Shambhubhai Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(1)(2) Ramani It Office, New Aayakar Bhawan, At. Virnagar, Tal: Jasdan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 360060 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awipr8457J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 13 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/ 01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2021-22, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax( Appeals), Vide Order Dated 08.03.2024, Which Is Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.12.2022. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2021-22, Is Barred By Limitation By 147 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Explained The Delay Stating That Assessee`S Wife, Smt. Kailashben Vipulbhai Ramani Was Ill & Suffering Severe Illness & Due To Such Bonafide Reason, Assessee Was Not Able To Vipulbhai Shambhubhai Ramani V. Ito Ay. 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 5

…‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the applicant, in this regard, reliance is based on the decision of Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366. Therefore, having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. On merit, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) has failed to issue notices to the assessee. The relevant snap shot from the portal of the Income Tax Department,…

AASTITVA JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 88/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 164(1)Section 234Section 249(2)

…no. 6240/M/2007 b) Judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar reported in (1996) 6 SCC 660 c) Judgment and order of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bharat Auto Centre v. CIT , reported in (2006) 282 ITR 366(All) d) ITAT, Bangalore order in the case of Mcafee Software India Private Limited v. DCIT , in IT(TP)A no. 110/Bang./2024. e) ITAT , Bangalore order in the case ofJCR Drillsol Private Limited v. ITO , reported in (2024) 164 taxmann.com 283(Bang. Trib.) f) ITAT, Chennai Order in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society v. ITO…

RAMESHCHANDRA BUDHIYABHAI AHIR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

ITA 621/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rameshchandra Budhiyabhai Ahir, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pilutha Faliyu, At & Post – Ward-1, Bardoli, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Siyalaj, Tal – Magrol, Dist – Surat, Surat – 394110 Bsnl Building, Station Road, Bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alfpa7625Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 51

…s ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable ITA.621/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Rameshchandra B. Ahir to the applicant [Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366]. The mistake of the lawyer or accountant may be a good reason for condoning delay. I find that there is good and sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 37 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merit, Ld. Counsel contended that order passed by the Assessing Officer is under section 144 o…

PRAFULCHABNDRA BHAICHANDBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(3)(3), SURAT

ITA 104/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.104/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prafulchandra Bhaichandbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bharthana (Vesu), Via-Althan, Taluka 2(3)(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Choryasi, Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azcpd7755Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…him to condonation of delay. We note that the words ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the assessee. [Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366]. The mistake of the lawyer or accountant may be a good reason for condoning delay. 8. In considering the condonation petition, it is to be remembered that statutes conferring a right of appeal must be construed in furtherance of justice and the provision limiting the time for bringing an appeal must be liberally interpreted, so that the party p…

T P D 101 UTHANGARAI MILK PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE SOCITETY LIMITED,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, KRISHNAGIRI

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

ITA 544/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.544/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. T P D 101 Uthangarai Milk- V. The Income Tax Officer, Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ward-I, 1, Pondichery Main Road, Krishnagiri. Uthangarai, Krishnagiri-635 208. [Pan: Aabat 0377 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi-For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P(2)

…and not Mandatory. 5. The appellant is relying on the decision of the IT AT Delhi in the-case of ACIT Vs. Dhir Global Industria Pvt Ltd (2011) 43 SOT 640 (Delhi) and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Bharat Auto Centre Vs CIT reported in 282 ITR 366.1n view of the above decision the appellant is eligible for the claim made under chapter 6A to an extent of Rs.10,09,800/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered Co- operative Society under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The assessee had filed its return of income for the AY 2019-20 on 14.11.2019…

GAUTAM BUDHA SOCIETY FOR SOCIAL WELFARE,NOIDA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3681/DEL/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anima, Sr. DR

Section 12A

…aces reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. United Christmas Celebration Committee Charitable Trust v. ITO (2017) 249 Taxman 372 and another decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bharat Auto Center v. CIT, 282 ITR 366 (Alld.). 5. Learned DR fairly conceded to allow the condonation of delay in view of the facts pleaded by the assessee. While recording the same and also in view of the fact that there is a reasonable belief in the mind of the assessee due to the order dated 22.12.2017 and also that the assessee does not stand to gain by challenging the order dat…

MISC BERHAD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse

Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.574/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2008-09) MISC Berhad v. Deputy Director of Income-tax C/o Crescent Shipping Agency (India) Ltd. (International Taxation) Himalayas, 4th Floor, Geetmala Complex, Range 3(2)(2) Near Shah Indl Estate, Scindia House, Deonar, Govandi, Mumbai – 400 038 Mumbai – 400 088 PAN NO. AAACM 1736 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Shri C.S. Shah Revenue by : Shri Samuel Darse Date of Hearing : 11.10.2017 Date of…

ARUN NAYYAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4970/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(c)

…nti Misra AIR 1976 SC 237 [SC]; (v) O.P.Kathpalia vs Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744 [SC]; (vi) Bharat Singh v. Narendera Kumar [2004] (13) SCC 691; (vii) Dinesh Nagindas Shah v CIT 273 ITR 229/190 CTR 106 (Gujarat High Court); (viii) Bharat Auto Center vs CIT 282 ITR 366 [Allahabad high Court]. 2. The Ld. Sr. DR, Sh.P.Dam. Kanunjna stated that although the condonation of 01 day’s delay is not being objected to however, in view of the fact that the present appeals were arising out of search thus he was not authorized to argue. 3. The Ld. AR objected to the said request. It was his submission that the argument that…

ARUN NAYYAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4965/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(c)