Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 147, Section 143(1), Section 253(5), Section 271(1)(c).

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

Q: How many judgments cite Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others?

268 judgments on BharatTax cite Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others (118 ITR 507), spanning 2014 to 2026.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 80ib delay in filing appeal section 139(4)enduring benefit condonation of delay section 253 reasonable cause section 12aa section 24 registration under section 12a erroneous and prejudicial

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

Sri. Diwakar Awasthi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1722/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15 Sri Diwakar Awasthi 29/1 Flat No.001, Usha Paradise Shanthi Main Road Shanthinagar Ito Vs. Bangalore South Ward-2(1)(1) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 250

…r consultant, he could not file the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on time At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors. Reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC), wherein it has been held that “the mistake of the counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground”. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel and therefore, t…

Nilesh Ratnakar Deshpande, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1382/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri G. Venkatesh, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

…consultant namely itr@dnsconsulting.net and he has not informed the assessee. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors. Reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC), wherein it has been held that “the mistake of the counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground”. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel and therefore, t…

Rinku Deshpande, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1381/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 250

…consultant namely itr@dnsconsulting.net and he has not informed the assessee. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors. Reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC), wherein it has been held that “the mistake of the counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground”. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel and therefore, t…

Sarika Zende, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Pune

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

ITA 1776/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1776/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1776/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sarika Dadaso Zende, Vs. ITO, Ward-14(5), Flat No.4, Baba Apartment, Pune Sinhagad Road, Sitabag Colony, Pune – 411 030, Maharashtra PAN : AANPZ232A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing : 18.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 06.01.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21 is directed against the order dated…

Sri Ayyappaswamy Sannidhanachari Table Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 1898/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri B.S. Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…s regard. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Company Sri Ayyappaswamy Sannidhana Charitable Trust, Bangalore Page 4 of 7 Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors. Reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC), wherein it has been held that “the mistake of the counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground”. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel and therefore, t…

Sea Face Park Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre

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

ITA 5417/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22 Sea Face Park Co. Ito Ward 19(3)(1) Operative Housing Piramal Chambers Society Limited Mumbai- 400012. 50, Bhulabhai Desai Vs. Road, Maharashtra- 400026. Pan: Aaaas3577R Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sea Face Park Co. ITO Ward 19(3)(1) Operative Housing Piramal Chambers Society Limited Mumbai- 400012. 50, Bhulabhai Desai Vs. Road, Maharashtra- 400026. PAN: AAAAS3577R Appellant : Respondent Present for: Assessee by : Shri S. Dangarwala Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 20-08-24 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-2, Vadodara for assessm…

Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigar Sheti Shahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Khed vs. ITO Ward8(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2167/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2167/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

…e deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay. 8. In yet another case in Anil Kumar Nehru and Another vs. ACIT (2017) 98 CCH 0469 BomHC, there was a delay of 1662 days in filing the appeal. Such a delay was not condoned by the Hon’ble High Court. In further appeal, condoning the delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Neh…

Qpave Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1685/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Subramanya Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

…ITA No.1684&1685/Bang/2024 QPAVE Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1684&1685/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 QPAVE Solutions Private Limited No.9 VS Naidu Street Shivaji Nagar ITO Vs. Bengaluru 560 051 Ward-5(2)(1) Bangalore PAN NO : AAACQ4291L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Subramanya Bhat, A.R. Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL ME…

Qpave Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1684/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Subramanya Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Choudhary Construction Co., Goregaon -W vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4071/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Acit, Circle – 31(1) Ms. Choudhari Mumbai – 400020. Constructions Co. 151/129, Sidharth Nagar, Road No. 5, Behind Cinemax Cinema, S.V. Road, Goregoan (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aabfc2689N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 145Section 201(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 50C

…d.AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) were virtually an ex-parte order in the absence of proper representation and also relied upon the decision in the following case laws: 1. 172 ITR 331 (MP), Mahaveer Prasad Jain Vs. CIT 2. 181 ITR 183 (ALL), Kripa Shankar Vs. CIT 3. 118 ITR 507, concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt Nrimala Devi & Others 4. 173 ITR 280(BOM) CIT Vs. Smt. K. Sipppy & Ors. 5. 173 ITR 280 (AP), Berulal Tiwari Vs. CIT. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 4. We have heard counsels of both the parties and perused the material placed on record, judgem…

Anand Govind Parab, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 4705/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Anand Govind Parab Assessing Officer Assessment Unit Flat No. 12, C-11, 1St Floor, Income Tax Department Gayatri Cps Sector, Sanpada, Vs. Ito Ward 34(2)(2) G Block, Bkc Navi Mumbai-400 705 Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 249(2)Section 54Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM Anand Govind Parab Assessing Officer Assessment Unit Flat No. 12, C-11, 1st Floor, Income Tax Department Gayatri CPS Sector, Sanpada, Vs. ITO Ward 34(2)(2) G Block, BKC Navi Mumbai-400 705 Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. ATIPP 8980 H (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dinesh Shah Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date of Hearing : 21.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 08.…

Santosh More, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1) Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug

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

ITA 3203/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh More Income Tax Officer Room No.6/14, Hirji 20(3)(1) Bhojraj Chawl, Room No. 621, Kalachowki S.O., 6Th Floor, Ambi Khalasa, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033. Lalbaug, Pan:Aotpm3679Q Mumbai- 400012. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rayan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. A.R

Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh More Income Tax Officer Room No.6/14, Hirji 20(3)(1) Bhojraj Chawl, Room No. 621, Kalachowki S.O., 6th Floor, Ambi Khalasa, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033. Lalbaug, Pan:AOTPM3679Q Mumbai- 400012. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rayan Saldanha Revenue by : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. A.R. Date of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by the as…

Coregeo Tech (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1626/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…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.” 5. Further, the ld. AR submitted that return was filed by the assessee within the due date. The assessee is not liable for deduction Page 4 of 7 of PF and ESI Act as employees…

Udaya Souharda Credit Co-Operative, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1535/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 801

…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). n. It is humbly prayed that your Honours takes a le…

Prathap Seetharama Reddy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalaore

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

ITA 1691/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri H. Guruswamy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 250

…ed by the assessee as well as by the Auditor's assistant M. Dileep Kumar. 4.1 At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors. Reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC), wherein it has been held that “the mistake of the counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground”. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel and therefore, t…

Magendra Singh Rathore, Alwar vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 483/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargiya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…t and has a binding force on all the officers subordinate thereto. Also, in the case of India Capacitor Ltd. (1989) 180 ITR 641 (Cal. HC), Autoser (P.) Ltd. (1998) 101 Taxman 70 (Cochin) (Mag.) & Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC) 2.7 Thus, the minor delay in filing of the instant appeal was not at all deliberate or intentional but arose due to circumstances beyond the assesses control, who was not going to gain anything. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that: a. This application may kindly be allowed by condoning the delay, taking a sympathetic view, in the interest o…

Thimmiah Narayanappa Muralidhar, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Shivamogga

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

ITA 1578/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Thimmiah Narayanappa Muralidhar, Vs. Ito, No.5, Karidevaraker I Cross, Gandhibazaar, Ward – 3, Shimoge – 577 202. Shivamogga. Pan : Bqkpm 0728 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Ravishankar & Monish Sowkar, Advocates. Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2024

For Appellant: S/Shri. Ravishankar and Monish Sowkar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…in ITA No. 120-135 of 2004 dated 19/07/2004 (Kar).  DIT(E) v. Karnataka Golf Association 42 taxmann.com 57 (Kar).  Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Others 167 ITR 471. (SC).  Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 (SC).  Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank and Others  (2009) 9 SCC 733  CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd 334 ITR 269 (SC).  CIT v. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd 322 ITR 309 (Mad).  Ramnath Sao and Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195  Senior BhosaleEstate (HUF) v. ACIT (2019) 112 Taxmann.com 1…

Virendra Singh Saini, Haryana vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1483/PUN/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Virendra Singh Saini, Vs. ADIT, CPC, WT-5/2001, Windchants, Bangalore Sector 112, Carterpuri B.O., Choma (62), Gurgaon, 122017, Haryana -122 017 PAN : ADIPS8272P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Date of hearing : 19.09.2024 Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appea…

Purnima Shetty, United Arab Emirates vs. Income-Tax Officer - 26(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3435/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumr Chauhan

Section 144Section 147

…se 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 Bao v. Gobardhan Rao…

Apollo Education Trust, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1215/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 234Section 68

…ons explained by the assessee for filing the appeals belatedly before ld. CIT(A). At this time, it is appropriate to mention the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors. Reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC), wherein it has been held that “the mistake of the counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground”. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel and therefore, t…