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.

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri N. Suresh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)

…ITA No.1267/Bang/2024 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AssessmentYear:2016-17 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Chinmaya Mission CMH Road, Indiranagar ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Bangalore 560035 Circle-1 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATK0797Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri N. Suresh, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of t…

Abdul Hakeem, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 31/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri Gokul H.R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, 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, 450 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Indira Veluri, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2513/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Pavan Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department

Section 250Section 253(5)

…luri, Bangalore Page 6 of 18 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, 201 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Louella Maria Albuquerque, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Mangalore

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

ITA 2487/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, 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, 416 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Bangalore Stock Exchange Customer Protection Fund, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, (E), Ward-1, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2246/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)Section 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, The delays of 270 days & 229 days cannot be consid…

Bangalore Stock Exchange Customer Protection Fund, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, (E) Ward-1, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2245/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, 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, The delays of 270 days & 229 days cannot be consid…

Priya Prasad Shirodkar, Calangute vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Panaji

ITA 53/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 053/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Priya Prasad Shirodkar H.No. 4/96, Prabhuwaddo, Calangute, Goa Pan : Akipg9924D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1065516948(1) Dt. 10/06/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(3)

…Shirodkar Vs ITO ITA Nos.053/PAN/2025 AY: 2020-21 sufficient reasons was prevented from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limit terms of section 253(3) of the Act. Consequently, applying the test laid in ‘CIT Vs KSP Shanmugavel Nadai Ors’ [1985, 153 ITR 596 (Mad)] we condone the aforestated delay and admit the same for adjudication on merit 3. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is an individual who filed her return of income on 13/03/2021 declaring therein total income of ₹16,06,900/-. The said return of income without variation in first placed processed summarily u/s 143(1) of…

Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Gandhinagar vs. CIT(A), Gandhinagar

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 190/AHD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No: 194/Ahd/2021 &\nITA No: 190/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year: 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah\nPlot No. 441-1, Sector-22\nNr. Police Chowkey,\nGandhinagar-382021\nPAN: ACSPS5653F\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. &\nMs. Krupa Panchal, CA\nRevenue Represented:\nDate of hearing\nDate of pronouncement\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R.\n: 19-03-2025\n: 03-04-2025\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nV

Section 144Section 17Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Nadai and Ors reported in 153 ITR 596 held as under: 6.1 "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 sectio…

Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No: 194/Ahd/2021 &\nITA No: 190/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year: 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah\nPlot No. 441-1, Sector-22\nNr. Police Chowkey,\nGandhinagar-382021\nPAN: ACSPS5653F\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nVs Gandhinagar\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. &\nMs. Krupa Panchal, CA\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 19-03-2025\nDate of

Section 144Section 17Section 271(1)(c)

Hitesh Suresh Jadhav, Kalher, Thane vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Kalyan

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

ITA 771/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 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…

Parasagad Taluka Prathamik Shikshakara Paraspara Sahakari Sangha Niyamit, Soundatti vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Belagavi

Appeals are ALLOWED for statistical purposes

ITA 15/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita No. 014 & 015/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Parasagad Taluka Prathamik Shikshakara Paraspara Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Saundatti, Belagavi. Pan:Aaaap1358B . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)

…e of the considered view that, the assessee for a sufficient reasons was prevented from filing these twin appeals within the prescribed limit terms of section 253(3) of the Act. Consequently, applying the test laid in ‘CIT Vs KSP Shanmugavel Nadai Ors’ [1985, 153 ITR 596 (Mad)] we condone the aforestated delay and admit the same for adjudication on merit The long and short of the quantum appeal is that; the 4. assessee is a Co-Operative Credit Society registered u/s 10 of the Bombay Act State, 1925. For the year under consideration the assessee filed its return of income ['ITR' hereafter] on 29/12/2020 declaring…

Parasagad Taluka Prathamik Shikshakara Paraspara Sahakari Sangha Niyamit, Soundatti vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Belagavi

Appeals are ALLOWED for statistical purposes

ITA 14/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)

Schneider Electric It Business India Private Limited(Formerly Known As American Power Conversion (India) Pvt Ltd.), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payers, Bangalore

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

ITA 2002/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Guru Prasad BL, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 263

…significant. However, the length of the delay is not the primary concern; rather, the cause of the delay is what matters. If a reasonable cause exists, the delay can be condoned. 7.1 The Hon’ble Madras High Court, in CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors (153 ITR 596), held that if a taxpayer is pursuing other . Page 4 of 7 legal remedies, the time taken for those proceedings should be considered when deciding whether the delay in filing an appeal is justified. In that case, the Hon’ble Court condoned a delay of approximately 20 years, recognizing the taxpayer’s valid reasons. 7.2 The term “sufficient caus…

India Land and Properties Limited (Since Merged With Equinox India Developments Ltd Formerly Known As India Bulls Real Estate Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 426/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 226

…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 8 ITA No.426/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 India Land and Properties Limited Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compare…

Capco Finance and Investment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on

ITA 44/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 249(2)Section 271FSection 69

…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 160 days cannot be considered to be inord…

Infrasructure Services, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 33(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 6625/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Prevision Project Management Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -14(2)(4), Mumubai

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

ITA 5799/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 147Section 69ASection 69C

…y therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, I 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 65 days cannot be considered to be inordi…

Minakshi Singh, Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 35(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6648/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 6648/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Sri. Diwakar Awasthi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1722/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15 Sri Diwakar Awasthi 29/1 Flat No.001, Usha Paradise Shanthi Main Road Shanthinagar Ito Vs. Bangalore South Ward-2(1)(1) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 250

…ITA No.1722/Bang/2024 Sri Diwakar Awasthi, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AssessmentYear:2014-15 Sri Diwakar Awasthi 29/1 Flat No.001, Usha Paradise Shanthi Main Road Shanthinagar ITO Vs. Bangalore South Ward-2(1)(1) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AETPA5413J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.R. Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the…

Nilesh Ratnakar Deshpande, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1382/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri G. Venkatesh, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

…hen the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. 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. 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…