Brajabandhu Nanda v. CIT

44 ITR 668Reported decision1962#9064 most cited

What is Brajabandhu Nanda v. CIT authority for?

A question of whether to condone delay in filing an appeal, due to sufficient cause, is a question of fact. Such a question of fact is not a question of law under Section 256 unless the Tribunal's discretion was exercised perversely.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Brajabandhu Nanda v. CIT · 44 ITR 668 · Section 256 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · question of fact · question of law · Tribunal's discretion · perverse exercise of discretion

Sections most often in play

Section 253(5)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 256section 202section 66bona fide mistakesection 253(3)section 253(5)section 264section 249(3)section 253tax deducted at sourcesection 271(1)(b)section 249

Judgments citing Brajabandhu Nanda v. CIT

M/S. Paravur Service Co-Operative Bank, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…57 of AIR 1957 SC): “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of each case…

M/S. Sjs Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

…57 of AIR 1957 SC): “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of each case…

M/S. Chitradurga Nirmithi Kendra, Chitradurga vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Davangere

ITA 1018/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 12ASection 40

…857 of AIR 1957 SC): “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse." A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of each case…

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 704/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…alore Page 12 of 23 “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of each case…

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 703/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…alore Page 12 of 23 “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of each case…

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 702/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…alore Page 12 of 23 “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of each case…

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 700/BANG/2024[2013-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…alore Page 12 of 23 “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of each case…

M/S. S J S Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 327/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

…57 of AIR 1957 SC): “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of each case…

M/S. Girraj Prasad Shambhu Dayal, Kherli vs. Pr.CIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 12/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Vaijayanatabai Baburao Vs. Shantaram 48-49 Baburao Patil & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4494 of 2001 (SC). 6 P. K. Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerla (SC) 50-51 7 K. Raja Gopal Rao Vs. Dolgobinda Sahu & Anr. 52-56 AIR 1959 Ori. 31(Orissay) 8 Brajabandhu Nanda Vs. CIT, 44 ITR 668 Orissa 57-60 9 CIT Vs. Ram Mohan Kabra 132 Taxman 516 (P & H) 61-65 The ld. DR out of the above judgment draw our attention to the relevant findings of the decision relied upon and the same is reiterated here in below : (i) Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Mgt. Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar, Civil Appeal No. 8183-8184 of 2013 (SC) “The law of limitatio…

M/S. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7042/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Neel Kanth Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)Section 80I

…857 of AIR 1957 SC): “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of each case…

Oricon Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted

ITA 7387/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Orion Enterprises, Acit, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabfo0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Subhacham Ram Cit-Dr

Section 69ASection 80H

…7 of AIR 1957 SC) : “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A Full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 668, considering somewhat similar question, where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under (headnote) : “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questions of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of…

Mohd Gafuruddin F. Siddique, Mumbai vs. CIT 15, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as not admitted

ITA 79/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07 Mohd. Gafuruddin F. Siddiqui, Cit-15, Flat No.1, Gr. Flr, Saadath Mumbai बनाम/ Manzil, 35, Bora St. Null Vs. Bazar, Behind Safai Masjid, Mumbai-400003 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aapps1966C

Section 143(3)Section 263

…57 of AIR 1957 SC): “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A Full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 668, considering somewhat similar question, where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under (headnote) : “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questions of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of…