How many judgments cite CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.?

171 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 253(5), Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 154, Section 143(1).

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.

153 ITR 596High Court1985#564 most cited

What is CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. authority for?

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

171

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. · section 253(5) · section 253 · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · reasonable cause · period of delay · condoning 21 years delay · section 250

Sections most often in play

Section 253(5)Section 250 Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 154 Section 143(1)Section 147 Section 246A

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 51 section 80ib reasonable cause section 17 section 139(4)delay in filing appeal condonation of delay section 253 section 274 section 154 prescribed

Judgments citing CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.

Vanigota Sugar Trading Company, Vijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2545/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 253(5)Section 263

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 937 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 547/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, just 17 days cannot be considered to be inordinate…

K N Dileep, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagar

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

ITA 1346/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Vijay Simha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 224 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Umbrella Foundation, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 897/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Murali Mohan, D.R

Section 253(5)Section 80G

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 54 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or e…

Marine Drishti and Coastal Foundation, Goa vs. CIT (Exemption), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 456/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R

Section 12ASection 253Section 80G

…was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We must see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the ITA Nos.454, 455 & 456/Bang/2025 Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation, Goa Page 7 of 15 condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the…

Marine Drishti and Costal Foundation, Goa vs. CIT (Exemption), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 455/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R

Section 12ASection 253Section 80G

Marine Drishti and Costal Foundation, Goa vs. CIT (Exemption), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 454/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R

Section 12ASection 253Section 80G

Narshi Gopalji Mange, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2064/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

…therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to…

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1) & Tps, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 942/BANG/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 17

…he delay, not the length of the delay. Therefore, in our considered view, when there is a reasonable cause, the period of delay is not a relevant factor. . Page 3 of 9 6.1 The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors, reported in 153 ITR 596, held as under: “Since in this case the assessee had been prosecuting other remedies, the time taken by those proceedings should naturally be taken while determining the question whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time. Therefore, the revenue was not right in submitting that the appeal filed under section 1…

Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Devarabhupur, Lingasagur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Exemption Ward-1, Kalburgi

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

ITA 502/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust 1 Devarabhupur Post Devabhupur Cit (Exemption) Lingasugur Vs. Ward-1 Raichur 584 139 Kalburgi Karnataka Pan No : Aazts9450P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Ramanagowda S Gowdari, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Sridhar E., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption) Dated 26.9.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2024-25/1069118346(1) Cancelling The Approval U/S 80G Of The Act Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sri Ramanagowda S Gowdari, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sridhar E., D.R

Section 253(5)Section 80G

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause of the delay. When there was a sufficient cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 99 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or e…

Siddiq Hussain Delvi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2374/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Siddiq Hussain Delvi No.127 L. No.1St Floor 6Th Street, Oph Road Shivaji Nagar Vs. Ito Ward 1(2)(2) Bengaluru 560 051 Bengaluru Pan No : Aveps62323P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Phani Kumar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri Phani Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R

Section 226(3)Section 250Section 253(5)

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 192 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Marasanige Chinne Gowda Santhosh, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 324/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Marasanige Chinne Gowda Santhosh 189, Marasanigi Village Post Mudigere Ito Chikmagalur Taluk Vs. Ward 1 Chikmagalur 577 124 Chikmagalur Karnataka Pan No : Bhzps2254R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Gireesha A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 20 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or e…

M/S Hussain Multispeciality Hospital, Bijapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vijayapur

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

ITA 2387/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 40

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 10 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or e…

Yuva Chintana Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward 2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 301/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 250Section 253(5)

…son stated by the assessee was a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. When there is a sufficient cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condon…

Indium Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 847/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Girish Kumar, Advocate for Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Gautham S. Mukundan

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…the assessee should remit to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court, and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the Ld.CIT(A), for which, we rely on the following decisions also: • CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar – [1985] 153 ITR 596 (Madras) • Hosanna Ministries v. ITO – [2017] 80 taxmann.com 173 (Madras) 3. Having condoned the delay of ‘1,970’ days in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), we restore the appeal back to his file i.e. the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as per sub- section (6) of section 250 of the Act. The assessee i…

St. Thomas Hospital & Leprosy Centre Society, Tiruvannamalai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 843/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Gautham S. Mukundan

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 54

…the RoI, the assessee’s opportunity to assail the same should not be denied and considering the entire facts, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeal, for which, we rely on the following decisions: • CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar – [1985] 153 ITR 596 (Madras) • Hosanna Ministries v. ITO – [2017] 80 taxmann.com 173 (Madras) 5. Having condone the delay of ‘3,178’ days in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), we reverse the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as per sub-section (6) of secti…

Radhe Finsec India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 506/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234A

…r the delay and not the length of the delay. Accordingly in our considered view when there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar and Ors reported in 153 ITR 596 held as under: “Since in this case the assessee had been prosecuting other remedies, the time taken by those proceedings should naturally be taken while determining the question whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time. Therefore, the revenue was not right in submitting that the appeal filed under section 17…

Cat Cosmetics and Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1189/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member ITA No: 1189/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 CAT Cosmetics And The ITO, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Ward-1(1)(3), B/505, Infinity Tower, Vs Ahmedabad Corporate Road, Opp. Prahladnagar Garden, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 (Respondent) Gujarat PAN: AACCC5955D (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Sunil Talati, CA Revenue Represented: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 01-05-2025 Date of pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTH…

Thrissur District Police Co Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

…ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 AssessmentYears:2014-15 & 2016-17 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd. ACP Office Thrissur PO Vs. Thrissur 680 001 ITO Kerala Thrissur PAN NO : AADAT5043N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri M.Ramdas, CA Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R. Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R PERKESHAV DUBEY, JUDIC…

Thrissur District Police Co Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)