CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra

257 ITR 773High Court2002#2231 most cited

What is CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra authority for?

Statutory provisions prescribing limitation periods must be applied strictly. Delay in filing an appeal can only be condoned for sufficient, bona fide, and well-substantiated cause, requiring due diligence from the appellant, and not merely on vague or general grounds.

52

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra · 257 ITR 773 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · limitation period · appeal filing delay · strict application of limitation · section 249(3) · section 253(5) · bona fide reason · negligence in appeal

Sections most often in play

Section 249(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147

Issues it is cited on

section 256section 202section 66bona fide mistakesection 253(3)section 253(5)section 249(3)section 264stay petitionsection 249principal officersection 253

Judgments citing CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

ITA 1094/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 60

…यकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sheetal Nath Colonizers, ITO 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/s Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone II Bhopal (PAN: ABZFS4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the in…

RAJEEV CHAUHAN,GADIWAN MAINPURI vs. ITO WARD2(4)5 MAINPURI, KACHEHARI ROAD MAINPURI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 438/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

…o the submissions of learned AR and submitted that the delay is substantial. Same cannot be condoned. In this regard he relied on the decision in the case of RB Ramlingam Petitioner vs RB Shavaneshwari (2009)(SC2)GJX 106 (SC), CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P&H) and Surinder Kumar Boveja vs. CWT (2006) 287 ITR 52 (Del). 8. Considered rival submissions and material placed on record. 9. After considering the facts available on record, I observe that the reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before CIT(A) within time is submitted before me in the form of affidavit and further it is brought to…

RAJEEV CHAUHAN,GADIWAN MAINPURI vs. ITO WARD 2(2)5 MAINPURI, MAINPURI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 437/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

…o the submissions of learned AR and submitted that the delay is substantial. Same cannot be condoned. In this regard he relied on the decision in the case of RB Ramlingam Petitioner vs RB Shavaneshwari (2009)(SC2)GJX 106 (SC), CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P&H) and Surinder Kumar Boveja vs. CWT (2006) 287 ITR 52 (Del). 8. Considered rival submissions and material placed on record. 9. After considering the facts available on record, I observe that the reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before CIT(A) within time is submitted before me in the form of affidavit and further it is brought to…

VEER PROJECTS,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 654/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 654/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 68

…Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) (36 G.S.T.L. 305). 5.11 Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of CIT Vs Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) (257 ITR 773) (Punjab & Haryana) has upheld the decision of Tribunal, in declining the condonation of delay of five days only, with the following ratio:- "3. The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statuto must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the of other party in a mech…

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…r earlier. Further, no specific date of his arrival in India or of filing the appeal thereafter was provided. The CIT(Appeals) referred to judicial precedents such as Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC) and CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H), and held that condonation of delay can only be granted when sufficient and bona fide cause is shown, which was absent in the present case. The CIT(A) held that provisions relating to limitation must be applied strictly and that the delay of several years cannot be condoned merely on general or vague grounds. Accordingly, the CIT(A) refused…

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…r earlier. Further, no specific date of his arrival in India or of filing the appeal thereafter was provided. The CIT(Appeals) referred to judicial precedents such as Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC) and CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H), and held that condonation of delay can only be granted when sufficient and bona fide cause is shown, which was absent in the present case. The CIT(A) held that provisions relating to limitation must be applied strictly and that the delay of several years cannot be condoned merely on general or vague grounds. Accordingly, the CIT(A) refused…

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

ITA 2761/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(3)

…taken care to preserve the right of appeal and having been slept over for more than 558 days and not explained the delay without any reasonable doubt, the appellant cannot avail sympathy or discretion of this Court.” 5 In the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra, 257 ITR 773 (Punjab & Haryana), it was observed by the Hon'ble Court as under: "The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provi…

PRAFULBHAI JAGUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

ITA 1294/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1294/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Prafulbhai Jagubhai Patel, Vs. Ito, 2/7, Dastan, Palsana, Surat – Ward - 1, 394 310 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bvopp8701K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shrijignesh Parikh, Ar With Shri Marufkhan Pathan, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

…satisfied that there has been due diligence on the part of the appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. The CIT(A) relied upon the decisions in cases of B. R. Ramalingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, (2009) (SC2) GJX 106 (SC), CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra, (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P&H) and Surinder Kumar Boveja vs. ITA No.1294/SRT/2024/AY.2013-14 Prafulbhai Jagabhai Patel CWT, (2006) 287 ITR 52 (Del) and held that the appellant had not made a case for having “sufficient cause” for delay in filing appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant was held to be invalid and non-maintainable, being out of time. He, therefore, did…

M/S. PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…isted sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time barred was set aside and the delay of 4 days was condoned. 4.2 At this stage, we also refer to decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kalra 257 ITR 773 (P&H). It was held in this case, that delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. In this case, Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of ITAT refusing to condone delay of five days in filing of Revenue’s appeal because of the reasons that (a) M/s. Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Thi…

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

…t and proper evidence. It is settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specific period of limitation must be applied with their rigor and effective consequences. 4.3 At this stage, we may refer to decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kalra 257 ITR 773 (P&H). It was held in this case, that delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. In this case, Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of ITAT refusing to condone delay of five days in filing of Revenue’s appeal because of the reasons that (a) affidavit of person who was dealing with file, w…

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

ITA 1018/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 12ASection 40

…ssee without placing any iota of evidence to suggest the mistake committed by the earlier counsel of the assessee, assessee wants to condone the delay, which cannot be done so. 2.6 At this stage, we may refer to decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kalra 257 ITR 773 (P&H). It was held in this case, that delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. In this case, Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of ITAT refusing to condone delay of five days in filing of Revenue's appeal because of the reasons that (a) affidavit of person who was dealing with file, w…

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 704/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…and proper evidence. It is settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specific period of limitation must be applied with their rigor and effective consequences. 6.2 At this stage, we may refer to decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kalra 257 ITR 773 (P&H). It was held in this case, that delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. In this case, Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of ITAT refusing to condone delay of five days in filing of Revenue’s appeal because of the reasons that (a) affidavit of person who was dealing with file, w…

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 703/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…and proper evidence. It is settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specific period of limitation must be applied with their rigor and effective consequences. 6.2 At this stage, we may refer to decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kalra 257 ITR 773 (P&H). It was held in this case, that delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. In this case, Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of ITAT refusing to condone delay of five days in filing of Revenue’s appeal because of the reasons that (a) affidavit of person who was dealing with file, w…

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 702/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…and proper evidence. It is settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specific period of limitation must be applied with their rigor and effective consequences. 6.2 At this stage, we may refer to decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kalra 257 ITR 773 (P&H). It was held in this case, that delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. In this case, Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of ITAT refusing to condone delay of five days in filing of Revenue’s appeal because of the reasons that (a) affidavit of person who was dealing with file, w…

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 700/BANG/2024[2013-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…and proper evidence. It is settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specific period of limitation must be applied with their rigor and effective consequences. 6.2 At this stage, we may refer to decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kalra 257 ITR 773 (P&H). It was held in this case, that delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. In this case, Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of ITAT refusing to condone delay of five days in filing of Revenue’s appeal because of the reasons that (a) affidavit of person who was dealing with file, w…

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 327/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

…and proper evidence. It is settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specific period of limitation must be applied with their rigor and effective consequences. 4.3 At this stage, we may refer to decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kalra 257 ITR 773 (P&H). It was held in this case, that delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. In this case, Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of ITAT refusing to condone delay of five days in filing of Revenue’s appeal because of the reasons that (a) ITA Nos.327/Bang/2024 SJS Enterprises Limited,…

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…negligence. Reliance stands placed on decisions in: - Jayvant Vaghela v. ITO [2013] 40 taxmann.com 491 (Guj) - Abzony Safety Glass Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 471 (P&H) - Mountview Exports(P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 46 (Cal) - CIT v. Rammohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H) 3. Before us, it was submitted by Shri Jojo that the assessee’s only fault, inasmuch as it was not registered u/s. 12AA of the Act, was in furnishing the return per a wrong Form, i.e., ITR-7, applicable, inter alia, to a person in receipt of income from property held under trust. This led to it being assessed, as opposed to at a loss, inasm…

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…negligence. Reliance stands placed on decisions in: - Jayvant Vaghela v. ITO [2013] 40 taxmann.com 491 (Guj) - Abzony Safety Glass Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 471 (P&H) - Mountview Exports(P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 46 (Cal) - CIT v. Rammohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H) 3. Before us, it was submitted by Shri Jojo that the assessee’s only fault, inasmuch as it was not registered u/s. 12AA of the Act, was in furnishing the return per a wrong Form, i.e., ITR-7, applicable, inter alia, to a person in receipt of income from property held under trust. This led to it being assessed, as opposed to at a loss, inasm…

KOLANGATH MUHAMMED ASLAM,TANUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1005/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskolangath Muhammed Aslam The Income Tax Officer Kolangath House Ward - 1 & Tps, Tirur Pariyapuram P.O. Vs. Tanur 676302 [Pan:Ccypk9063K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hamid Hussain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5

…olangath Muhammed Aslam v. ITO SCC 556, the Apex Court again clarifies that the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even as it may harshly affect a particular party. The Hon’ble Court in CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H) holding, on a review of judicial precedents, including Ramachandran (supra), that delay could be condoned only on good & sufficient reasons, represents the clear law in the matter. In G. Ramegowda, Major vs. Special Land Acquisition, 1988 AIR (SC) 897, it was held that deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the pa…

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 55/COCH/2023[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

…an vs. State of Kerala[1997] 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court again clarifies that the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even as it may harshly affect a particular party. The Hon’ble Court in CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H) holding, on a review of judicial precedents, including Ramachandran (supra), that delay could be condoned only on good & sufficient reasons, represents the clear law in the matter. In G. Ramegowda, Major vs. Special Land Acquisition, 1988 AIR (SC) 897, it was held that deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the pa…

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3