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

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 8d(2)(ii)ready for usesection 35(1)(i)section 35(1)(iv)section 35(1)(ii)r&d expendituresection 35(1)section 8osection 244section 234dsection 51weighted deduction

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

Shri Narandar Pugalia, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1767/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

For Appellant: Shri G.S Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale
Section 68

…in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co.Ltd., Smt.Nirmala Devi and Others reported in 118 ITR 507. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. reported in 334 ITR 269. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd. reported in 2322 ITR 309 wherein the Court while condoning the delay of 1826 days held that … “…Rules of limitation are not mean to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory…

Ashok D Thakkar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 86/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidni, CIT-DR

…ing the appeal may be condoned. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corp. 3 ITA.No.86/SRT/2019 Sh. Ashok D. Thakkar, Surat. Ltd., [2011] 334 ITR 269 (SC) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Others 1987 AIR 1353 (SC). 3. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. submitted that delay is very abnormal and that no reasonable cause have been explained for failure to file the appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, application of assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal ma…

M/S Ittina Properties Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1297/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.1054, 3Rd Block, 7Th Main Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034. Pan: Aaci 3805 Q … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Chandrashekar, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Dismissing The Assessee’S Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Learned Ar Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Without Providing Adequate Opportunity & Also Narrated Facts In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Prayed That An Opportunity Be Granted To The Assessee To Reiterate The Submissions Made Before Lower Authorities With Page 2 Of 6 Substantive Evidences. Contra, Learned Dr Objected To The Submissions & Prayed That The Delay Is Inordinate & The Cit(A) Was Right In Dismissing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 40a

…Others 118 ITR 507. Further the Appellant relies on another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2009] 9 SCC 733 and CIT vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited [2011] 334 ITR 269 (SC).” 3. We, having considered the submissions of both the parties, facts and circumstances and the legal decisions and principles of natural justice are of the opinion that the revenue shall not be at a loss if an opportunity is provided to the assessee. Therefore, to meet the substantial justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and…

M/S. Bansi Lal and Sons, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. K.Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aastha Lakshmi, Sr.D.R
Section 145Section 44A

…g delay of 696 days. Ld.Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471 and CIT vs West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd., reported in 334 ITR 269. It has been submitted that delay has been ITA No. 01/Del/2015 AY-2009-10 Bansi lal and Sons vs. ACIT occurred due to lack of knowledge of assessee about intricacies of tax law. 3. Ld.Counsel prayed for delay to be condoned in present case. 4. On the contrary Ld.Sr.DR submitted that assessee has failed to substantiate huge delay of 626 days in f…

M/S Ittiam Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2221/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri Smarak Swain, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…TR 507. Further the assessee also relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank & Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 733 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). At the outset, we observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra), has explained the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Court has also exp…

M/S Saisri Power Projects and Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2650/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2650/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Saisri Power Projects & Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 6[1][1], No.81, Plot No.5D, Bangalore. Sushobit Residency, 2Nd Block 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore – 560 079. Pan : Aancs 3278 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Shri. Prashanth G. S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Inder Solanki, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019 O R D E R

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri. Prashanth G. S, CA
Section 144Section 5

…he case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others reported in 118 ITR 507. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd reported in 334 ITR 269. 9. We wish to place reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd reported in 322 Page 3 of 10 ITR 309 wherein the Court while condoning the delay of 1826 days held that — Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort…

The Graduates Co-Operative Society Limited, Shivamogga vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Shivamogga

In the result, appeals by the assessee for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 are treated as allowed for statistical purpose while appeal for AY 2013-14 & 2014-

ITA 2787/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-

For Appellant: Smt.Soumya AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Karuppuswamy, Addl.CIT
Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…lso placed on another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2000] 9 Supreme Court Cases 733 and Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation limited (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). Reliance was also placed on the unreported decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Another Vs. ISRO Satellite Center, in ITA No. 532 of 2008 and other batch of appeal order dated 28/10/2011 has condoned the delay of 5 years in filing the appeal before the CIT[A]. Reliance was also placed on the decis…

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

…spose it on such technicalities and that too at the threshold. Unless mala-fides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. 5.8 In CIT vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corp. Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC) (DPB 20-21) held that The department delayed the filing of appeal in the matter involving huge stakes. The High Court dismissed the appeal. Held, considering the amount of tax involved, the High Court ought to have decided the appeal 28 29 Shri Ram Bharose Sharma vs ITO, Ward- 2(4), Jaipur before it on the merits. The matter was remanded t…

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…

Cosmos Garden Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 1067/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A)For Respondent: Shri D.S. Kothari (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1067/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13. cuke M/s. Cosmos Garden Resorts Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, Circle-7, Vs. S-1, Kamal Apartments, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AADCC 7768 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1068/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10. cuke M/s. Manu Yantralaya…

Four Oceans Publishers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 4466/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh Four Oceans Publishers P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3) C/O. Strand Book Stall Room No. 531A, 5Th Floor Dhannur Ground Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sir P.M. Road, Fort Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacf4958M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta

…Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of: - (i) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471) (SC) (ii) Radhakrishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank and Others (2009) 9 SCC 733 (iii) CIT vs. WSest Bengal Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC) 2.3 Per contra, the learned D.R. opposed the condonation of delay. 2.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions on the issue of condonatoin of delay of 728 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 and perused and carefully considered the material on record. At the outset we observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MST Katiji (167 IT…

Deva International, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T Cir - 29, Kolkata

In the result appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1464/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 143

…ng decisions Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ors. 118 ITR 507(SC) Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank & Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 733 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). Keeping in mind the decisions referred to above, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) ought to have been condoned by the CIT(A). We condone the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the Assessee on merits, we direct the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the Asse…

Sri.B. Surya Kumar vs. ITO

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2005-06

ITA 1678/BANG/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K, JCIT (D.R)
Section 271A

…ncements :- (i) Collector, Land Acquisition V MST Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). (ii) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V Smt. Nirmala Devi & Others, 118 ITR 507 (SC). (iii) CIT V West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). (iv) Raghavendra Constructions V ITO in ITA 425/Bang/2012. (v) Shakuntala Hegde L/R of R.K. Hegde V ACIT in ITA No.2785/Bang/2004. (vi) CIT V ISRO Satellite Centre in ITA No.532/2008 (Kar H.C.) ITA Nos.1678 to 1681/Bang/2013 B. Surya Kumar 4 It was submitted that if the delay in filing these appeals is not condoned, the assessee would…