Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 147, Section 144, Section 144B, Section 142(1), Section 250(6).

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

Q: How many judgments cite Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.?

451 judgments on BharatTax cite Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (2 SCC 107), spanning 2013 to 2026.

2 SCC 107Supreme Court of India1987#157 most cited

What is Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. authority for?

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

451

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Collector v. Katiji · Mst. Katiji · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · liberal approach · justice on merits · extension of limitation · reasonable cause · Section 250 · Section 147 · Section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 147 Section 144 Section 144B Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

extension of limitation reasonable cause delay in filing appeal best judgment assessment section 12a(1)(ac)(iii)section 250(6)section 12a(1)(ac)condonation of delay section 12a(1)section 80g(5)service of notice section 12ab

Judgments citing Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Versatile Polytech Pvt. Ltd

Appeals are dismissed as time barred

ITA/371/2022HC Delhi12 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 260ASection 5

…e sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: “27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed pe…

Raghupahy Dhakshayani, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-8(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.133/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Ms. Raghupathy Dhakshayani, The Income Tax Officer, No.100, Raja Garden, Non-Corporate Ward-8(3), Andalammal Street, Chennai. Nolambur, Chennai-600 095. [Pan: Ajbpd 7249 N ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan

…he right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in [1987] 2 SCC 107, where although, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Courts must adopt liberal approach to condone the delay, but very categorically observed that it is for the assessee to explain each and every day of delay in filing of the appeal. In the present case, although, there is huge delay of 1161 days in filing of the appeal, but the assessee could no…

Vishal Bansal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 58/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…de intention on the part of the assessee in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation and / or in filing the appeals belatedly. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 2 SCC 107 ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a caus…

Rajpal, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO Ward -2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 392/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

…proper opportunity to the assessee to explain the alleged default under Section 249(4) if any, and also towards belated filing of appeal. The CIT(A) shall keep in mind the watershade principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 while examining the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) shall readjudicate all issues in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/04/2023. [KUL BHARAT] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /04…

Indrawati, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-2, Panipat

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1426/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 154

…deration and therefore, no mala fide can be imputed for small delay in filing first appeal by adopting hyper technical approach. A reference to the judgments in the case of Collector, I.T.As No.1425 & 1426/Del/2022 4 Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107; N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT, 398 ITR 250 (Bom). 7. There can be numerous occasions faced by a tax payer/litigant where he is unable to exercise his right for filing appeal within the period prescribed in the statute. One such undisputable reason is fiery pandemic which was a long haul a…

Indrawati, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-2, Panipat

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1425/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 154

Davinder, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for 8statistical purposes

ITA 2794/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4

…ention for delay in filing of appeal; therefore adopting of hyper technical approach to avoid substantive justice by CIT(A) is contrary to the law of land laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107; N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123; Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DC IT 398 ITR 250 (Bom). 4. That the CIT(A), has dismissed the appeal without giving any finding on the merits of the case, and merely on the ground of delay in filing an appeal, it is respectfully submitted, that the order passed by the CIT(A), is liable to be set-as…

Davinder, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for 8statistical purposes

ITA 2793/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4

M/S. C. J. Group & Gajras Builders & Developers, Panvel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 2/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.02/Srt/2021 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan No. Aagfc 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…elopers  Shiv Raj Gupta Vs.s CIT, Delhi-IV (Civil Appeal No.12044 of 2016) dated 22.07.2020 (SC)  CIT vs. Walchand &Co. (1967) 3 SCR 214 (SC)  J.K.Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT (1969) 1 SCR 525 (SC)  CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1976) 2 SCC 5 (SC)  Shahzada Nand & Sons v. CIT (1977) 3 SCC 432 (SC)  S.A Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (12007) 1 SCC 781 (SC)  Kay Dee Industries vs. JCIT (ITA No.2069 of 2016) dated 09.08.2018 (Trib-Delhi)  CIT vs. Navsari Cotton Silk Mills Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) 11. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. On th…

Venkatesh Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-3(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7181/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A K Tribrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Venkatesh Securities Ltd., 1010, Maker Chambers V, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACV5479K] ……………… Appellant Vs The Income-Tax Officer 3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri A K Tribrewal/Saurabh Gupta For the Respondent/Department : Shri Vivek Perumpura Date of conclusion of hearing : 14.09.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 30.11.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By wa…

Kalla Viswanadha Babu, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 249/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Kalla Viswanatha Babu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), Pan: Akvpk 9287 A Visakhapatnam. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 08/07/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)

…es of the case, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case for condoning the delay. Accordingly, we, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector (LA) vs. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 and also the decision of the Apex Court in SMW(A) No.3 of 2020 wherein the Apex Court held that the period of limitation for filing the appeals under general laws and all special laws falling between 15/3/2020 and 28/02/2022 shall be excluded for calculating the delay, hereby condone the delay of 1528 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on me…

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…efore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on his part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘Sufficient Cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that s…

Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Samajikk Sanstha, Khamgaon vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 55/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Vs. C.I.T.(Exemptions) Samajik Sanstha, Pune At Nagpur. 1, Vasundhara, Madhav Nagar, Khamgaon-444303. Pan No.: Aaabv 0305 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. C.I.T.(Exemptions), Pune At Nagpur Dated 23/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assesee. “1. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit By Taking A Recourse To Section 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law, When The A.O. Has Made Sufficient Enquiries During The Assessment Procedure. 2. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Without Considering Appellant’S Submission Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 3. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit Even Though If It Is Termed As Erroneous But It Is Not Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. As The Donation Has Been Duly Disclosed By The Appellant In Their

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 253(5)Section 263

…e becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on his part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. 5. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 4 ITA 55/NAG/2021_ Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Samajik Sanstha Vs CIT(E) held that the expression ‘Sufficient Cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the instituti…

Fouress Engineering (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1427/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Fouress Engineering (India) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., Tax-5(1)(2), 4Th Floor, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacf 5897 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Jeevraj P. Jain &For Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

…ecomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on his part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. 5.1 In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. V. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of the justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of the Court. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court…

ITO 20 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vishal Junnar Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai

ITA 7752/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Vishal Junnar Sahakari Patpedhi Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Maryadit, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. 5-6, Marwadichawl, K.L. Borkar Parel, Marg, Ghaudapdev D.P. Wadi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400033 Pan No. Aaaav 0104 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vishal Junnar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Patpedhi Maryadit, B/3, Sussex Industrial Estate, Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadojikonddeo Cross Road, Mumbai-400012. Byculla (E), Mumbai-400027. Pan No. Aaaav 0104 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Vishal Junnar Sahakari Patpedhi Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Maryadit, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. 5-6, Marwadichawl, K.L. Borkar Parel, Marg, Ghaudapdev D.P. Wadi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400033 Pan No. Aaaav 0104 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Kadrekar&For Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 80PSection 80P(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Vishal Junnar Sahakari Patpedhi Room No. 205, 2nd floor, Maryadit, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. 5-6, MarwadiChawl, K.L. Borkar Parel, Marg, Ghaudapdev D.P. Wadi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400033 PAN No. AAAAV 0104 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vishal Junnar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Room No. 205, 2nd floor, Piramal Patpedhi Maryadit, B/3, Sussex Industrial Estate, Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug…

Mr Sanjay Ganesh Puranik, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3 (3), Thane

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

ITA 8039/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Sanjay Ganesh Puranik, Ito-Ward-3(3), 1, Teredesai Building, Near Bank Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road Of Maharashtra, Gokhale Road, No. 162, Nehru Nagar, Wagle Naupada, Ind. Estate, Thane-400602 Thane-400601 Pan No. Agrpp 1849 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR

…ending in the Income Tax Department and my applications for getting the legitimate relief and condone the delay from the date of order by CIT(A) in filing appeal.” 5. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression 'Sufficient Cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub- serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that…

Sunil Vishambarnath Tiwari, Nagpur vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 240/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari, Vs. I.T.O. 87, Panchvati Builders, Hindustan Ward 1(4), Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur- Nagpur. 440015. Pan No.: Aalpt 0719 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Nagpur Dated 30/05/2014 For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Endorsing The View Taken By The A.O. Of Disallowing Claim Of The Assessee. 3. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. In This Appeal, There Is Delay Of 363 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay & The Contents Of The Same Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.DR)

Section 253(5)

…demise of his counsel the file could not be traceable as well as due to left leg fracture of the assessee, the appeal could not be filed on time before the Tribunal. 5. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘Sufficient Cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that s…

Aara Agro Pvt. Ltd., Agra vs. Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 207Section 234BSection 234C

…ay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. VsMst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107 and N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (7) SCC 123. 18 L.T.A No. 54/AGR/2021 12.4 ITA No.2494/Mum/2018 Shri NibeshJabarmalChandanivs 1TO order dated 28.11.2018 (Page No.l129 to 135 of paper book) (Para 6) liberal approach has to be adopted by the appellate a "Nevertheless, authorities where delay has occurred for bona fide reasons on the part…

Dalu Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 55/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 54 & 55/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2009-10 Dalu Ram Meena, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 34, Surya Vihar, Ward 6(5) Jagatpura, Jaipur-302025. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Btupm 8782 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Akshay Shah (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Aashish Nehra (Addl. Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Both Dated 15/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are As Under: Grounds Of Ita 54/Jp/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10 “1. That The Subject Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Liable To Be Quashed As The Order Is Passed In Haste Manner, Without Taking Into Consideration The Written Submission, Facts, Documents & Evidences As Furnished By Appellant Available On Record. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) & The A.O. Have Failed To Appreciate That:

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Aashish Nehra (Addl. CIT-DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107 and N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (7) SCC 123. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there is a substantial delay of 48 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. He opposed the prayer for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. The…

Dalu Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 54/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Aashish Nehra (Addl. CIT-DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F