Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others

167 ITR 5Supreme Court of India1987#590 most cited

What is Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others authority for?

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Land Acquisition Anantnag v Katiji · Collector Land Acquisition v Mst Katiji · 167 ITR 5 SC · condonation of delay · sufficient cause for delay · appeal filing delay · Section 253(1) Income Tax Act · Section 249(2) Income Tax Act · liberal interpretation of delay · income tax appeals · judicial discretion delay · justice over technicality

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others

SHRI LEO DINIZ,BORDA, FATORDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, PANAJI

The appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 150/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Deniz Row House No. 6 J P Andrade Residency, Borda Fatorda, Goa-403602 Pan: Amgpd8687A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging Order Dt.

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(1)

…ecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. In view of the parameter set in judicial precedent cited (supra) and ‘Vijay V Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averments made in support of delay per-se failed to prove existence of sufficient cause, therefore all pleas made therein & grounds contended to buy home delay condonation stands rejected, thus not admitted for adjudication, and in consequence stands dismissed. 33. In result, the appeal i…

SHRI JINNAPPANNA CHOUGULE LALBAHADUR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BELGAUM

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 277/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbhahdur Credit Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit 2471, Lalbahadur Akkamahadevi Chowk, At Post: Shirguppi Tal.:Athani Dist.:Belgaum. Pan : Aagas8466F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-(521)(1), Karwar. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Jaykumar Patil [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073446535(1) Dt. 19/02/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereafter].

For Appellant: Mr Jaykumar Patil [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…cation to that effect. The reason explained in our considered view is enough to pass the test of sufficiency laid in ‘Vijay V Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)]. Therefore, the delay occurred in filing this appeal is condoned and advanced for adjudication on merits. 3. The long and short of the case is that; the assessee is a credit co-operative Sangh/society which filed its revised return of income [‘ITR’ hereafter] on 10/02/2021 declaring NIL income after claiming chapter VI-A deduction of ₹53,28,…

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 35/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

…nt assessee. ITAT-Panaji Page 31 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025 AY: 2011-12 & 2014-15 36. In view of the Hon’ble Apex Court ratio laid in the case of ‘Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst Katiji & Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], we also hold that appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the ‘sufficient cause’ not only for condonation of delay and but also in non-prosecuting impugned appeals proceedings. Further the appellant has much less proved the existence of any error in the findings of tax authorities below or in the manner adopted in adjudication vis-à-vi…

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 34/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

…nt assessee. ITAT-Panaji Page 31 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025 AY: 2011-12 & 2014-15 36. In view of the Hon’ble Apex Court ratio laid in the case of ‘Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst Katiji & Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], we also hold that appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the ‘sufficient cause’ not only for condonation of delay and but also in non-prosecuting impugned appeals proceedings. Further the appellant has much less proved the existence of any error in the findings of tax authorities below or in the manner adopted in adjudication vis-à-vi…

Showing 120 of 164 · Page 1 of 9

...