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

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 51section 80ibreasonable causesection 17section 139(4)delay in filing appealcondonation of delaysection 253section 274section 154prescribed

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

M/S.Al Zarafa Travels & Manpower Consultants P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 521/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

…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 I.T.A. Nos.518 to 523/Coch/2018 the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 71 days cannot…

M/S.Al Zarafa Travels & Manpower Consultants P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 520/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

…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 I.T.A. Nos.518 to 523/Coch/2018 the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 71 days cannot…

M/S.Al Zarafa Travels & Manpower Consultants P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 519/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

…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 I.T.A. Nos.518 to 523/Coch/2018 the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 71 days cannot…

M/S.Al Zarafa Travels & Manpower Consultants P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 518/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

…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 I.T.A. Nos.518 to 523/Coch/2018 the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 71 days cannot…

Maheshraj Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 791/AHD/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.791/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1999-2000 Dcit, Mahesraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Vs. 141, Phase Ii, Gidc, Vatva, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382330 Pan:Aabcm0424C

For Appellant: Smt Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 271Section 28Section 36Section 80H

…lay. Accordingly, in our considered view when there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor. We find support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors reported in 153 ITR 596 wherein it was 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…

Nova Intergrated Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Nova Integrated Systems Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 1(3)(2), 1St Floor, Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan Modi Street, Fort M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aacch0670G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 5Section 51

…be condoned. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding on merits. a. Chamanlal Bras Pvt Ltd v. The Punjab State (1961), 12 STC 643 (Punj.) b. Ashok Automobiles (Ranchi) Pvt Ltd, 174 ITR 566,567. c. K.S.P. ShanmugavelNadar, 153 ITR 596 (Mad.) d. BrijIndar Singh v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917 PC 156 e. AsiBai v. Gomathi, AIR 1979 Mad 115,116 f. Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd v. State of Punjab, (1999) 116 STC 324,326 (Punj.) 9. Furthermore, as per the provisions of Sub-section 6 of Section 250, order of the Commissioner-Appeals should be in writing and shall s…

M/S Vakrathunda Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 1084/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajashekar Reddy L., CIT (DR)
Section 264

…ed an alternative remedy available and therefore, there was sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal before the CIT (A). In this regard, he placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements. a) CIT Vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar and Others, 153 ITR 596 (Madras) b) CIT Vs. Sharma and Company, 153 ITR 605(Raj) c) J.M. Bhasali and Others Vs. The State of Madras, 21 STC 411(Madras) He submitted that the delay in filing appeal should be condoned and matter should be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for decision on merit because he has not made decision on merit. The ld. DR of revenue supported…

Crompton Greaves Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4585/MUM/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Crompton Greaves Vs. Dcit – 6(2), Mumbai Ltd., 6Th Floor, C.G.House, Dr. A.B.Road, Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc3840K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 154Section 250Section 80H

…., condoned. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding on merits. a. Chamanlal Bras Pvt Ltd v. The Punjab State (1961), 12 STC 643 (Punj.) b. Ashok Automobiles (Ranchi) Pvt Ltd, 174 ITR 566,567. c. K.S.P. ShanmugavelNadar, 153 ITR 596 (Mad.) d. BrijIndar Singh v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917 PC 156 e. AsiBai v. Gomathi, AIR 1979 Mad 115,116 f. Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd v. State of Punjab, (1999) 116 STC 324,326 (Punj.) g. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, 167 ITR 471,472-73 (SC) 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for st…

Mr. N. Nachimuthu, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

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

ITA 2840/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Supriya Pal, JCIT
Section 221Section 69

…ning the delay by CIT (Appeals), as this delay is very short delay, not inordinate delay and the reason stated by the assessee found to be bona fide, is held by Madras High Court in 5 I.T.A. No. 2840/Mds/2016 the case of CIT v K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar [1985] 153 ITR 596 wherein observed that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation and that delay of 131 days cannot be said that inordinate delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 131 days caused before the CIT (Appeals) in filing the appeal and we remit the issue raised by t…

Rudra Blades and Edges (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/CHNY/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.272/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Rudra Blades & Edges (P) The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 36, Josier Street, Nungambakkam, Company Circle V(4), Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 3669 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.272/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s Rudra Blades and Edges (P) The Assistant Commissioner of Ltd., v. Income Tax, 36, Josier Street, Nungambakkam, Company Circle V(4), Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACR 3669 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, A…

Devi Marine Food Exports P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 9

ITA 2167/CHNY/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80H

…rcumstances had approached the Assessing Officer by invoking the rectification proceedings in view of the mistake in the calculation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act was apparent from the record. I state that the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 153 ITR 596 would fortify and approve the stand of the Petitioner Company herein. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the delay of 309 days in filing the above appeal relating to the Assessment Year 1993-94 may be condoned and the decision be rendered on the merits of the grounds of appeal forming part of the statutory Form No.35 in the interest of…