Cases 733 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation

334 ITR 269Supreme Court of India2011#2172 most cited

What is Cases 733 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation authority for?

This Supreme Court judgment lays down principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, advocating for a lenient and compassionate view, especially when the advancement of substantial justice is at stake.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income-tax v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation · 334 ITR 269 · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · sufficient cause · appeal to Tribunal · lenient view · Income Tax Act appeals · SC judgment on delay

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Cases 733 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation

Everest Grande Commercial Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CPC ITO, 24 (1) (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2487/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & S Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2487/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Everest Grande Commercial बिधम/ Cpc/Ito-24(1)(1) 3Rd Floor, Piramal Premises Vs. Cts-46/34, Plot 3A Everest Chambers Lalbaugh, Grande Society, Mahakali Mumbai-400034. Caves Road, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaae5455A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Kukreja Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 19.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Admitting The Same On Grounds Of Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh KukrejaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ntial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. (334 ITR 269) had also inter alia observed that, looking at the amount of tax involved in that case, that the High Court ought to have to 7 A.Y. 2014-15 Everest Grande Commercial Premises Co-op Soc. Ltd decided the matter on the merits, rather than disposing of cases merely on the ground of delay. 8. It is trite in law that, the expression "sufficient cause"…

Kunigal Thibbaiah Srinivasa, Kunigal vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tumakuru

In the result, appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed partly allowed

ITA 125/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Kunigal Thibbaiah Srinivasa, Vs. Ito, Behind Shanthamma Temple, Ward – 2, Mahaveera Nagar, Tumkur Road, Tumakuru. Kunigal – 572 130. Pan : Ennps 4678 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 11.10.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 81 Days In Filing This Appeal. In An Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal, It Has Been Stated That The First Appellate Authority Passed An Ex-Parte Order Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Not Educated. He Is Residing In Mofussil Areas I.E., Kunigal & Is Not Aware Of The Intricacies Of E-Tax Proceedings. He Therefore Did Not Respond To Notice Issued Nor Instructed His Tax Practitioner. The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Passing Of The Ex-Parte Order By The First Appellate Authority & Came To Know About The Same Only When He Received Notice For Recovery Of Outstanding Demand On 21.11.2022. It Has Also Been Submitted That The Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

…case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank Et Others [2009] 9 SCC 733; Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu Et Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao 8c Others, reported in [2002] 3 SCC 195 and CIT Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited [2011] 334 ITR 269 [SC]. The crux of the ratio laid down in these decisions is to the effect that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of substantive justice, especially in tax proceedings and when there is no willful neglect on the part of the party seeking relief. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the plea as contained in the app…

Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum vs. CIT, Bangalore

ITA 8/BANG/2016[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri.Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : N.A. Visvesvaraya Technological University, The Commissioner Of Jnana Ganga Campus, Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions), Belagavi. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaajv 0064 F Appellant Respondent : Shri. M.V. Seshachala, Sr. Standing Assessee By Counsel & Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, I.T.P Revenue By : Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 28/01/2021, Passed By Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No.825/2018. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2. In The First Round Of Appeal The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Before This Tribunal Against Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(E), Dated 08/12/2015: 1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(E)] Under Section 12A Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The I-T Act), To The Extent It Is Not Retrospective In Effect, Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Unreasonable & Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Law.

For Respondent: Shri. M.V. Seshachala, Sr. Standing
Section 10(23)(C)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(a)Section 80G

…ctional High Court in the case of Karnataka Golf Association Vs. Director of Income-tax reported at [2014] taxmann.com in which their Lordship has held, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of West Bengal Infrastructure Development reported at 334 ITR 269 and Concorde of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi 118 ITR 507 that condonation of delay should be allowed where public interest is involved. 15.Turning to the facts of the case, we find that assessee has moved an application for registration under section 12A on 25.05.1999, but this application was not disposed of by the CIT and it…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1111/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

…471 (SC); (ii) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 (SC); (iii) Radha Krishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2009] 9 SCC 733; (iv) CIT vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited [2011] 334 ITR 269 (SC); (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh & Ors.in Civil Appeal No. 2395 of 2008 (SC); (vi) Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao reported in AIR 2002 SC 1201; The assessee further relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Raghavendra Constructions v. ITO in ITA No. 425/Bang/2012 wherein this Tribunal has, having regard to t…