Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

118 ITR 507Supreme Court of India1979#301 most cited

What is Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others authority for?

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

268

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi · 118 ITR 507 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · liberal interpretation · legal advice · mala fides · gross negligence · Section 253(5) · delay in filing appeal · Supreme Court.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 147Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 148Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 80ibdelay in filing appealsection 139(4)enduring benefitcondonation of delaysection 253reasonable causesection 12aasection 24registration under section 12aerroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…om) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement on questions of law by Courts are sometimes wrong. An amount of latitude is expected in such cases for, to err is human and laymen, as litigants are, may legitimately lean on expert counsel in legal as well as in other departm…

Bhartkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…om) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement on questions of law by Courts are sometimes wrong. An amount of latitude is expected in such cases for, to err is human and laymen, as litigants are, may legitimately lean on expert counsel in legal as well as in other departm…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…om) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement on questions of law by Courts are sometimes wrong. An amount of latitude is expected in such cases for, to err is human and laymen, as litigants are, may legitimately lean on expert counsel in legal as well as in other departm…

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…om) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement on questions of law by Courts are sometimes wrong. An amount of latitude is expected in such cases for, to err is human and laymen, as litigants are, may legitimately lean on expert counsel in legal as well as in other departm…

Asst. CIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. M.R. Seetharama (Indl), Bangalore

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

ITA 926/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…a for condonation of delay in filing the C.O., the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases :- (i) Collector, Land Acquisition V MST Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471. (ii) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. (118 ITR 507). 6.2 We have heard both the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue and the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee in the matter. Taking into account the & C.O. Nos.74 & 75/Bang/2015 facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the substantial inte…

M/S Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1282/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boazkarnataka State Beverages Corporation Ltd., 4Th Floor, Ttmc Building, ‘A’ Block, Bmtc, Shantinagar, Bangalore-560027. … Appellant Pan: Aacck1421A Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(5), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 263Section 43B

…assessee before the authorities below and relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions: i. Collector, Land Acquisition, vs. Mst Katiji & others (1987) (167 ITR 471); ii. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Others (118 ITR 507 (SC); iii. Radhakrishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank & others (2009) 9 SCC 733; and iv. CIT vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation (334 ITR 259) The learned departmental representative, however, opposed the above contentions of the assessee. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that as…

Sri.B. Surya Kumar vs. ITO

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2005-06

ITA 1678/BANG/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K, JCIT (D.R)
Section 271A

…of this proposition, the assessee, inter alia, placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements :- (i) Collector, Land Acquisition V MST Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). (ii) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V Smt. Nirmala Devi & Others, 118 ITR 507 (SC). (iii) CIT V West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). (iv) Raghavendra Constructions V ITO in ITA 425/Bang/2012. (v) Shakuntala Hegde L/R of R.K. Hegde V ACIT in ITA No.2785/Bang/2004. (vi) CIT V ISRO Satellite Centre in ITA No.532/2008 (Kar H.C.) ITA Nos.1678 to 1681/Bang/2013 B. Surya Kumar 4…

M/S Bharat Furnishing Co vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/34/2002HC Delhi12 Aug 2014
Section 271(1)(a)

…. Reference was made to the decision of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala Vs. Krishan Kurup Madhava Kurup, 1971 AIR Ker 211, which was approved and extracted by the Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi, [1979] 118 ITR 507 to observe that legal advice sometimes might be wrong and on pronouncements on questions of law, human errors can take place and the courts must be careful when they examine the question of competence or merits of the legal advice to rule out and segregate cases which do not have any taint of mala fides or element of recklessness or ruse. I…