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

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssessee:- (1) N.Balkrishnan V/s. M. Krishnamurty (1988) 7 SCC 125 (2) Collector of Land Acquisition V/s MST Katiji & Others (1987)167 ITR 471(SC) (3) Mata Din V/s. A. Narayan (AIR 1970 (SC) 1953) (4) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Nirmala Devi (118 ITR 507)-SC 8. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the application under S.12A of the Act, as made by the assessee in ground No.1. We accordingly direct that the registration be granted to the assessee with effect from 1.4.2002.” 37. We find pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the subject assessment…

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssessee:- (1) N.Balkrishnan V/s. M. Krishnamurty (1988) 7 SCC 125 (2) Collector of Land Acquisition V/s MST Katiji & Others (1987)167 ITR 471(SC) (3) Mata Din V/s. A. Narayan (AIR 1970 (SC) 1953) (4) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Nirmala Devi (118 ITR 507)-SC 8. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the application under S.12A of the Act, as made by the assessee in ground No.1. We accordingly direct that the registration be granted to the assessee with effect from 1.4.2002.” 37. We find pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the subject assessment…

Sri. Appanna Devarao Sirdeshpande, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 597/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate –Standing
Section 143(2)Section 250

…elay is allowed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank and others (2000) 9, SCC 733. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, being an individual and having income from house property, income from other sources, and agricultural income, filed his return of income for the AY 2020-21 on 07.01…

Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Mysore

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

ITA 695/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…delay is allowed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507. Further the Appellant relies on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2000] 9 Supreme Court Cases 733 and Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation limited (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). 20. The appellant craves leave of this Hon’ble Trib…

Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Mysore

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

ITA 694/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…delay is allowed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507. Further the Appellant relies on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2000] 9 Supreme Court Cases 733 and Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation limited (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). 20. The appellant craves leave of this Hon’ble Trib…

Muniyappa Muniraju, Bengaluru vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 263Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. CIT, No.1/3, 1st Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, BTM I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. PAN : ANJPM 0458 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 04.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This…

Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…o erroneous advice given by the applicant's consultant. Thus, delay is not attributable to any fault or negligence on the part of the applicant. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance CO.Ltd. Vs Nirmala Devi & Ors. AIR 1979 SC 166; 118 ITR 507(Supreme Court), and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. MstKatiji and Ors. 1987(2) SCC 107, delay caused by erroneous advice of the Applicant's Consultant should be condoned to advance substantial justice. In light of this judgment, the applicant submits that the Applicant had sufficient gause for delay and the delay be condoned…

Chourasiainfratech Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 317/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Y Pranay Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s Chourasia Infratech Pvt. Ltd., No.22, Chourasia Heights, 1st Cross, The Dy. Commissioner of Ashwath Nagar, Marathahalli, Income Tax, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 037. Circle - 2(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 095. PAN – AAFCC 5426 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Y Pranay Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT Date of hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 O R D E R PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This…

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 370/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT
Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

…is allowed. 25. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 and also in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507. Further the Petitioner / Appellant relies on other decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2009] 9 SCC 733; and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others, reported in [2002] 3 SCC 195 and another decision…

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 369/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT
Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

…is allowed. 25. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 and also in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507. Further the Petitioner / Appellant relies on other decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2009] 9 SCC 733; and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others, reported in [2002] 3 SCC 195 and another decision…

Micro Plantae Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 5112/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Micro Plantae Ltd. Acit – 5(2), 4, Unity House, 2Nd Floor, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 8, M.P. Marg, Opera House, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400004. [Pan No. Aaacm3686P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 144(1)(c)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 69

…n the following decision.  Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and Ors. 167 ITR 471  Vijay Vishin Meghani vs DCIT and Anr 398 ITR 250  N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy 7 SCC 123  Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ors 118 ITR 507  Phoenix Mills Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA No. 6240/M/2007 dated 23.03.2010)  CIT vs Phoenix Mills Ltd. (ITA No. 5596 of 2010 dated 09.12.2011) 5 Micro Plantae Ltd.(AY 2005-06)  Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha S. Trivedi vs ITO 125 TTJ 42  DCIT vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board 2226 TTJ 861  Chirag P. Thummar vs PCIT 159 taxmann.com 1628 5. On merit, the lea…

M/S Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 24/DDN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 158ASection 250

…e and also by respectfully following the judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Nirmala Devi & Ors. reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC) wherein it is held that “it is a settled principle that mistake of counsel made in certain circumstances to be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of Ld. Counsel by itself is a sufficient ground”. Thus, the delay in filing the captioned appeals is condoned and the appeals are heard…

M/S Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 23/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 158ASection 250

…e and also by respectfully following the judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Nirmala Devi & Ors. reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC) wherein it is held that “it is a settled principle that mistake of counsel made in certain circumstances to be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of Ld. Counsel by itself is a sufficient ground”. Thus, the delay in filing the captioned appeals is condoned and the appeals are heard…

Ms Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Litd., Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 22/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 158ASection 250

…e and also by respectfully following the judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Nirmala Devi & Ors. reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC) wherein it is held that “it is a settled principle that mistake of counsel made in certain circumstances to be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of Ld. Counsel by itself is a sufficient ground”. Thus, the delay in filing the captioned appeals is condoned and the appeals are heard…

M/S. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Dehradun vs. ITO, W-1(1)(3), Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 21/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 158ASection 250

…e and also by respectfully following the judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Nirmala Devi & Ors. reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC) wherein it is held that “it is a settled principle that mistake of counsel made in certain circumstances to be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of Ld. Counsel by itself is a sufficient ground”. Thus, the delay in filing the captioned appeals is condoned and the appeals are heard…

Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 27(3)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Patsanstha Ltd. Mumbai C/O. Shantaram Jagtap, Ravji Sojpal Vs. 422, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Chawl No. 7, Room No.18, T.J. Vashi Railway Station Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400015 Complex, Vashi, Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Abyfs 0132 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

…e' will always have relevancy to reasonableness and actions, which can be condoned by Court and it should fall within realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. In the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC) Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that what is to be looked into is whether there is any taint of mala fide or element of recklessness or ruse and if neither is present, legal advice honestly sought and actually given, must be treated as sufficient cause for condoning 9 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd the delay. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court…

Tejibai Educational Society, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4147/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. a/w
Section 12A

…isions including Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi Tejibai Educational Society Tej ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 [(1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC)] and [(1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC)] and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [AIR 2002 SC 1201], makes it abundantly clear that “sufficient cause” 2002 SC 1201], makes it abundantly clear that “sufficient cau 2002 SC 1201], makes it abundantly clear that “sufficient cau must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation in…

Rahul Ramesh Ektare, Thane vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2886/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rahul Ramesh Ektare Circle 5(3)(1) 1101, Dahila, Runwal Garden City, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Balkum, Balukum S.O., Thane, Vs. Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400608 Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aafpe 5470 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin M Chavan, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

…e' will always have relevancy to reasonableness and actions, which can be condoned by Court and it should fall within realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. In the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC) Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that what is to be looked into is whether there is any taint of mala fide or element of recklessness or ruse and if neither is present, legal advice honestly sought and actually given, must be treated as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao…

Trident Marbles Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2625/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-20 Trident Marbles Pvt Ltd Asst. Commissioner Of Income Near Laxmi Narayan Temple Airport Tax, Central Circle-2(3) Side Service Road, Sahar P & T Vs. Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Colony, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Mumbai- 400099 Annexe, M.K.Road, Mumbai, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aaact 4634 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 37(1)

…not benefit by delaying legal proceedings. These principles underscore that a pragmatic and liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with such applications. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [(1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC)] held that if the delay is not tainted with mala fides or gross negligence and is based on legal advice honestly obtained, it would constitute sufficient cause for condonation. Similarly, in Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [AIR 2002 SC 1201], it was held that a pedantic approach in refusing to condone delay may result in miscarriage of justice…

Tejibai Educational Society, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1044/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. a/w
Section 12A

…isions including Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi Tejibai Educational Society Tej ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 [(1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC)] and [(1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC)] and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [AIR 2002 SC 1201], makes it abundantly clear that “sufficient cause” 2002 SC 1201], makes it abundantly clear that “sufficient cau 2002 SC 1201], makes it abundantly clear that “sufficient cau must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation in…