Madhu Dadha v. ACIT

317 ITR 458High Court2009#2214 most cited

What is Madhu Dadha v. ACIT authority for?

While a liberal approach should be adopted when considering the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, the appellant must always demonstrate a sufficient cause to explain the delay. Failure to provide adequate reasons for the delay will result in the dismissal of the appeal.

52

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Madhu Dadha v. ACIT · 317 ITR 458 · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · sufficient cause for delay · liberal approach · Section 249 · Section 249(3) · explanation for delay · dismissal of appeal

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148ASection 1961Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 248section 249(3)section 249delay in filing appealsection 249(2)assessee in defaultsection 194aadvance taxsection 200asection 234esection 200section 201

Judgments citing Madhu Dadha v. ACIT

Kokila Balaraman, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 718/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…se for condoning any delay. This was held so by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal & Others Vs. Rewa Coal Fields Limited, AIR 1962 [SC] 361. Similar observations were also made by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madhu Dadha Vs. ACIT, 317 ITR 458. There is no thumb rule that the delay in all cases is to be condoned. Acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria. :: 4 :: I.T.A. Nos.717 & 718/Chny/2019 6. The Hon’ble Chennai ITAT in the case of JCIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Limited, 105 TTJ 705 underlines the importance of making distinction between inordinate delay and del…

B.Gokula Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…se for condoning any delay. This was held so by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal & Others Vs. Rewa Coal Fields Limited, AIR 1962 [SC] 361. Similar observations were also made by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madhu Dadha Vs. ACIT, 317 ITR 458. There is no thumb rule that the delay in all cases is to be condoned. Acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria. :: 4 :: I.T.A. Nos.717 & 718/Chny/2019 6. The Hon’ble Chennai ITAT in the case of JCIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Limited, 105 TTJ 705 underlines the importance of making distinction between inordinate delay and del…

Ashok Kumar Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5515/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

…y of limitation and thereafter for each day. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision in the case of Rankak & Ors, Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 JCIT vs Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (IT AT, Chennai-TM) 104 ITD 149, Madhu Dadha vs ACIT (Mad) 317 ITR 458. The appellant failed to draw the similarity of facts and circumstances of the case laws relied upon to his own case. For example the appellant failed to substantiate that whether the papers were handed over to the Advocate and whether he paid to the Advocate or not. Considering above facts and circumstances this appeal preferred by the appellant…

DCIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sangam India Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld
Section 2(24)

…ich are not present in this case. The assessee has to prove due care, attention and diligence and should demonstrate that the delay was beyond its control. For the same, Ld. CIT-DR referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Madras High Court in Madhu Dadha V/s ACIT (317 ITR 458) to support the contention that there is a requirement of sufficient cause to explain the delay. Reliance has similarly been placed on various other judicial pronouncements. 5.5 The Ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted that the decisions as referred to by Ld. CIT-DR would not be applicable to the facts of the case. It was submitted that the decis…

Kuldip, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward - 3(2), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 5437/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 144Section 68

…y of limitation and thereafter for each day. Reliance in this regard is- placed on decision in the case of Rankak & Ors, Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, JCIT vs Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai-TM) 104 ITD 149, Madhu Dadha vs ACIT (Mad) 317 ITR 458. Considering above facts and circumstances this appeal preferred by the appeal is treated as non-est being defective.” 4. We have noticed undisputed fact that the assessee was in jail during the period from 06/10/2016 to 03/04/2017 in relation to some criminal proceeding against him. The limitation for filing this appeal expired in December, 201…

Kirankumar Jayantilal Maha, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 920/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 253(5)

…and there has to be a reasonable cause for the same. I.T.A No. 920/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 3 Kirankumar J. Mala vs. ACIT Similarly observations were made by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madhu Dadha vs. ACIT (2014) 186 taxman 88 (2009) 317 ITR 458. In view of the above facts and finding, the question regarding whether there is a cause or not which depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into account totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. Since no cogent and satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the assessee for del…

Smt. Nirupama Yogeshbhai Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1568/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. D.R
Section 253(5)

…has to be a reasonable cause for the same. Similarly observations were made by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the I.T.A No. 1568/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 3 Smt.Nirupama Yogeshbhai Gupta vs. ITO case of Madhu Dadha vs. ACIT (2014) 186 taxman 88 (2009) 317 ITR 458. In view of the above facts and finding, the question regarding whether there is a cause or not which depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into account totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. Since no cogent and satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the assessee for del…

Sunita Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1400/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.:- 1400/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sunita Devi ITO P-240, Sector-12, Pratap Vihar, Vs. Ward- 2(3) Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh PAN No: ADSPD3360M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. C.S. Anand, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2019 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the Order dated 30.11.2018 of CIT(A)- Ghaziabad, pertaining to 2011-12 Assessm…

Sejal Gopalbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1490/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

…o show reason for delay on the last day of limitation period and thereafter for each day. It may further be pointed out that condonation is not a matter of right. A. Rankak & ors Vs. Rewa Coalfield Limited, AIR 1962 361 (SC), B. Madhu Dada Vs. ACIT (Chennai) 317 ITR 458. Considering the above, I am of the view that the appeals filed by the assessee deserved to be rejected ab initio.” 4. The assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 6. We fi…

Sejal Gopalbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1489/AHD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

…o show reason for delay on the last day of limitation period and thereafter for each day. It may further be pointed out that condonation is not a matter of right. A. Rankak & ors Vs. Rewa Coalfield Limited, AIR 1962 361 (SC), B. Madhu Dada Vs. ACIT (Chennai) 317 ITR 458. Considering the above, I am of the view that the appeals filed by the assessee deserved to be rejected ab initio.” 4. The assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 6. We fi…

Sejal Gopalbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1488/AHD/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

…o show reason for delay on the last day of limitation period and thereafter for each day. It may further be pointed out that condonation is not a matter of right. A. Rankak & ors Vs. Rewa Coalfield Limited, AIR 1962 361 (SC), B. Madhu Dada Vs. ACIT (Chennai) 317 ITR 458. Considering the above, I am of the view that the appeals filed by the assessee deserved to be rejected ab initio.” 4. The assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 6. We fi…

Sejal Gopalbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1487/AHD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

…o show reason for delay on the last day of limitation period and thereafter for each day. It may further be pointed out that condonation is not a matter of right. A. Rankak & ors Vs. Rewa Coalfield Limited, AIR 1962 361 (SC), B. Madhu Dada Vs. ACIT (Chennai) 317 ITR 458. Considering the above, I am of the view that the appeals filed by the assessee deserved to be rejected ab initio.” 4. The assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 6. We fi…

Concord Drugs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1901/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…d by the TRO to the assessee as discussed above and to which the assessee has responded to. 2.4 It may be submitted here that, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Madhu Dadha v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- IV(2), Chennai (317 ITR 458) held that when the delay on the part of the assessee was deliberate and the assessee was clearly guilty of culpable negligence, such negligent attitude was not taken care of to preserve the right of appeal and having slept over for more than 558 days and having not explained the delay without any reasonable doubt, the assessee could not avail of…

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Concord Drugs Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1154/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…d by the TRO to the assessee as discussed above and to which the assessee has responded to. 2.4 It may be submitted here that, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Madhu Dadha v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- IV(2), Chennai (317 ITR 458) held that when the delay on the part of the assessee was deliberate and the assessee was clearly guilty of culpable negligence, such negligent attitude was not taken care of to preserve the right of appeal and having slept over for more than 558 days and having not explained the delay without any reasonable doubt, the assessee could not avail of…

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Concord Drugs Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1153/HYD/2014[2007]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…d by the TRO to the assessee as discussed above and to which the assessee has responded to. 2.4 It may be submitted here that, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Madhu Dadha v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- IV(2), Chennai (317 ITR 458) held that when the delay on the part of the assessee was deliberate and the assessee was clearly guilty of culpable negligence, such negligent attitude was not taken care of to preserve the right of appeal and having slept over for more than 558 days and having not explained the delay without any reasonable doubt, the assessee could not avail of…

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Concord Drugs Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…d by the TRO to the assessee as discussed above and to which the assessee has responded to. 2.4 It may be submitted here that, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Madhu Dadha v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- IV(2), Chennai (317 ITR 458) held that when the delay on the part of the assessee was deliberate and the assessee was clearly guilty of culpable negligence, such negligent attitude was not taken care of to preserve the right of appeal and having slept over for more than 558 days and having not explained the delay without any reasonable doubt, the assessee could not avail of…

Diamond Infosystems Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 701/AHD/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.701/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-2005 Diamond Infosystems Ltd. A.C.I.T, Circle-1(2), (Previously Enterprise Intelligent Vs. Systems Ltd) Baroda. 5/12, Bidc, Gorwa, Baroda.

Section 143(3)Section 5

…of an appeal for about one year. If the proper dates or occasions are not mentioned with proper facts, then the delay cannot be condoned. In this behalf, we rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Madhu Dadha v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 458/[2010] 186 Taxman 8. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that it was clear that the assessee had not explained the cause of delay in filing the appeal, especially when the authorized representative who was given charge to file the appeal had died exactly one year after the last date for filing of the appeal. Ev…

H.Narayanlal, Vellore vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “डी” "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318 & 1319/Chny/2017 Assessment Years: 2001-02 to 2007-08 Shri H. Narayanlal, The Deputy Commissioner of 4/28, Bazaar Street, Vrinjipuram, Vs. Income Tax, Vellore. Central Circle IV(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN: ACHPN3211F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respon…

H.Narayanlal, Vellore vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1318/CHNY/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “डी” "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318 & 1319/Chny/2017 Assessment Years: 2001-02 to 2007-08 Shri H. Narayanlal, The Deputy Commissioner of 4/28, Bazaar Street, Vrinjipuram, Vs. Income Tax, Vellore. Central Circle IV(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN: ACHPN3211F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respon…

H.Narayanlal, Vellore vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1317/CHNY/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “डी” "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318 & 1319/Chny/2017 Assessment Years: 2001-02 to 2007-08 Shri H. Narayanlal, The Deputy Commissioner of 4/28, Bazaar Street, Vrinjipuram, Vs. Income Tax, Vellore. Central Circle IV(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN: ACHPN3211F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respon…