(iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

13 DTR 371Reported decision2008#7230 most cited

What is (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

The court considers whether to condone a delay in filing an appeal, taking into account the explanation provided and the arguments from both parties.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Oracle India Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · reasonable cause · explanation for delay · first appeal

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271AAC(1)Section 69ASection 10(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(va)section 36(1)reasonable causecondonation of delaysection 36first appealsalaryopportunity of being heardsection 143(1)section 80indiasection 142(1)

Judgments citing (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Seema, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 255/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Seema, Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), 349/276, Suppa House, Bazar Lucknow New Khala, Lucknow-226004 Pan:Ftyps6815K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 14.09.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3), On 11.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 250 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals) Nfac Was Passed Without Providing Proper Opportunity To The Appellant, Which Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Therefore, The Same Is Void Ab- Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld Assessing Officer U/S 40(A)(3) Of The Act Amounting To Rs 3,01,36,682/- Without Appreciating The Material On Record & The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Disallowance Under Section 40A(3) Without Giving Due Weightage To The Totality Of The Circumstances & Considerations Of Business Expediency Existing In The Present Case As Contemplated In Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2016-17 Seema, vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), 349/276, Suppa House, Bazar Lucknow New Khala, Lucknow-226004 PAN:FTYPS6815K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 30.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 14…

Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle 1(1)(1) Meerut, Range-14, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 85/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Vs Jurisdictional Assessing 508, Begum Bagh, Meerut, Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Uttar Pradesh-250001 Range-14, Meerut, Pan-Afmpk3273Q Uttar Pradesh-250001 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hemant Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10029654 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Security Agency. The Appellant Filed His Return Of Income On 17.08.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 46,84,309/- & The Same Was Assessed U/S 143(1) On 11-12-2020 At The Income Of Rs.87,33,921/- Wherein The Cpc Made The Disallowance On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. 3. Against This Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Ld.Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Vide Impugned Order Dated 29.11.2023 Thus, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…on of delay:- Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (i) Vijay Vishin Meghani, vs The DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is inordinate delay of 338 days and no proper explanation is given except ill health of the assessee which also was not supported by any evidences,…

Dileshwar Nath, New Delhi vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 68(5), Delhi, Range Code- 73, New Delhi

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

ITA 75/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…on of delay:- Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (i) Vijay Vishin Meghani, vs The DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is inordinate delay of 734 days and no proper explanation is given except ill health of the assessee which also was not supported by ITA Nos. 74 & 7…

Dileshwar Nath, Delhi vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 68(5), Delhi, Range Code- 73

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

ITA 74/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…on of delay:- Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (i) Vijay Vishin Meghani, vs The DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is inordinate delay of 734 days and no proper explanation is given except ill health of the assessee which also was not supported by ITA Nos. 74 & 7…

Daljeet Singh, Jind vs. Assessing Officer, Jind

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/CHANDI/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 847/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Daljeet Singh, The Ao, बनाम House No. 469/24, Ward 15, Jind Employees Colony Vs. Rohtak Road Bye Pass, Jind 126102 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bmips1734G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 847/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Daljeet Singh, The AO, बनाम House No. 469/24, Ward 15, Jind Employees Colony Vs. Rohtak Road Bye Pass, Jind 126102 "थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: BMIPS1734G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date o…

Pappu Jaiswal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 281/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Sh. Pappu Jaiswal ITO, Vs. Plot No. B-60 A, Mitra Vihar Ward 2(2), Colony Panchawala, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGOPJ9097Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. B. Natani, C.A jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b…

Dev Group, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward Behror, Behror

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

ITA 73/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 80

…) 74 DTR (MA) 86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay reasonable cause delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". Copy of order is enclosed. (iv) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 200…

Krishan Kumar Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO Ward, Behror

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

ITA 69/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. & Shri Harsh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 80

…) 74 DTR (MA) 86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay reasonable cause-delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". Copy of order is enclosed. (iv) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 200…

Dinesh Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 74/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…on of delay:- Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (i) Vijay Vishin Meghani, vs The DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is inordinate delay of 734 days and no proper explanation is given except ill health of the assessee which also was not supported by ITA Nos. 74 & 7…

The Safearth Foundation, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 756/JPR/2024[NOT APPLICABLE ]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 12A

…) 74 DTR (MA) 86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay reasonable cause delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". (iv) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 Unless m…

Shakuntla Devi, Tijara vs. Income Tax Officer, Riico Industrial Area, Bhiwadi

In the result the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 864/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 2(14)Section 69B

…(ii) Just Steels vs DCIT [2012] 74 DTR (MA) 86 – Appeal could not filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd. vs DCIT [2008] 13 DTR 371 that ‘’condonation of delay – reasonable cause- delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal.’’ (iv) Improvement Trust vs Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) Civil Appeal Nos. 2395 of 2008 dated 26-06-2010 – Un…

Ram Dev Chandelwal, S/O Shri Heera Lal Chandelwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Bundi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…12) DTR (MA)v 86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay - reasonable cause- delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". (iv) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 Unles…

Shri Rakesh Garh, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kishangarh

ITA 318/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 271B

…74 DTR (MA) 86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay — reasonable cause — delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was Sh. Rakesh Garg Vs ITO valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". Copy of order is enclosed. (iv) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) C…

Shri Rakesh Garg, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kishangarh

ITA 317/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 271B

…74 DTR (MA) 86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay — reasonable cause — delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was Sh. Rakesh Garg Vs ITO valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". Copy of order is enclosed. (iv) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) C…

Shri Umesh Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 326/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik/;{k ,oa Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 326/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 Shri Umesh Singh, cuke I.T.O., Vs. Dholi Mandi, C/o- Rohit Auto Ward- 7(3), Garage, Renwal Road, Chomu, Jaipur. Jaipur-303702. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AMEPS 3364 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reven…