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

H.Narayanlal, Vellore vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1316/CHNY/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2004-2005

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 1315/CHNY/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2003-2004

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 1314/CHNY/2017[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2002-2003

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 1313/CHNY/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

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…

P.P. Enterprises, Panvel vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 1010/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)

…ction 3 of section 249 of the Act. In this regard I would like to place my reliance on following rulings : Rankak & Ors Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (ITA, Chennai-TM) 104 ITD 149 Madhu Dasha Vs. ACIT (Mad) 317 ITR 458. Party has to show reason for delay on last day of limitation period and therefore for each day thereafter-condonation is not matter of right-Court has to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction. 4 P.P. Enterprises. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” From the above, it is evident that the CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal of the ass…

Atma Ram Auto Enterprises, Agra vs. ACIT(TDS), Agra

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

ITA 6/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 194CSection 194HSection 271

…Vs CWT (2006) 287 ITR 52 (Delhi High Court) that want of due care, ignorance of law or failure to seek legal advice are not sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Madhu Dadha Vs ACIT (2009) 317 ITR 458 (Madras). A third member decision of the Tribunal in JCIT Vs TFE Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai) (TM) also supports the same view. Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench A, in the case of DCIT Vs Brijwasi Impex Pvt Ltd, ITA No. 361/Del/2011 dated 30.09.2014 also confirms the view that advise of the counsel cannot be a deciding factor for treating the same a…

Sara Research and Development Centre P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3529/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Goradia-DR
Section 143(3)

…r hour-to- hour delay,but delay has to be explained.Finally,what may be sufficient cause in one case may be otherwise in another.What is of essence is whether it is an act of prudent or reason - able man. Here,we would like to refer to the case of Madhu Dadha(317 ITR 458).In that matter The appeal filed by the assessee against the order of assessment before the First Appellate Authority(FAA) was dismissed. The assessee filed a belated appeal before the Tribunal along with an affidavit explaining the delay for filing the appeal.The Tribunal,after elaborately discussing the affidavit filed by the assessee and takin…

M/S. Deventhira Spinners (P) Ltd., Erode vs. ACIT, Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2442/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2442 Of 2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Supriya Pal, Jt. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

…d and followed. There is nothing to suggest any ulterior motive. What else, one may ask, prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time? The ld. CIT(A) has, in not condoning the delay, relied on the decisions in the case of Madhu Daha v. Dy. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 458 (Mad) and CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H). The proposition that the appellant must show sufficient cause for the delay is well-settled. What is sufficient cause is a matter of fact, even as clarified in Ram Mohan Kabra (supra), and which we have found as so considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the legal…

Rakhi A Sawant, Mumbai vs. CIT -11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2966/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Before Shri Before Before Shri Shri Sanjay Garg, Shri Sanjay Garg, Sanjay Gargsanjay Garg & And & Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Ashwani Taneja, , , Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2965 & 2966/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / / / / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ms.Rakhi Sawant, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), , M/S Chandravijay Shah & Vs. Room No. 438, 4Th Floor, Co., Aayakar Bhavan, Chartered Accountant, M K Road, 401, Rainbow Chambers, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Nr. Mtnl, Kandivili (W), Mumbai-400067 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aumps5377C अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri A K Srivastava सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश / O R D E R / O R D E R / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Above Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No.2966/Mum/2013. 3. This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order

Section 263

…g case laws and has pleaded that the delay cannot be condoned unless and until the cause for condonation of delay is explained. A) (1994) 92 STC 165, 167 (Punjab); B) DCM Ltd V/s State of Tamil Nadu (1995) 96 STC 263, 264 (Madras); C) Madhu Dadha V/s ACIT (317 ITR 458) (Mad); D) Union of India V/s Tata Yodogawa Ltd 1988 (38) ELT 739; and E) J B Advani and Co Ltd V/s CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). 6. From the above pleadings, we do not find any plausible reasons to justify the long delay of 704 days for filing the present appeal. Even though earlier Chartered Accountant did not co-operate with her, yet, she req…

Rakhi A Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Before Shri Before Before Shri Shri Sanjay Garg, Shri Sanjay Garg, Sanjay Gargsanjay Garg & And & Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Ashwani Taneja, , , Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2965 & 2966/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / / / / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ms.Rakhi Sawant, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), , M/S Chandravijay Shah & Vs. Room No. 438, 4Th Floor, Co., Aayakar Bhavan, Chartered Accountant, M K Road, 401, Rainbow Chambers, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Nr. Mtnl, Kandivili (W), Mumbai-400067 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aumps5377C अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri A K Srivastava सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश / O R D E R / O R D E R / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Above Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No.2966/Mum/2013. 3. This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order

Section 263

…g case laws and has pleaded that the delay cannot be condoned unless and until the cause for condonation of delay is explained. A) (1994) 92 STC 165, 167 (Punjab); B) DCM Ltd V/s State of Tamil Nadu (1995) 96 STC 263, 264 (Madras); C) Madhu Dadha V/s ACIT (317 ITR 458) (Mad); D) Union of India V/s Tata Yodogawa Ltd 1988 (38) ELT 739; and E) J B Advani and Co Ltd V/s CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). 6. From the above pleadings, we do not find any plausible reasons to justify the long delay of 704 days for filing the present appeal. Even though earlier Chartered Accountant did not co-operate with her, yet, she req…

Devi Marine Food Exports P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 9

ITA 2167/CHNY/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80H

…is on the part of the assessee to show reason for delay on the last day of limitation period and thereafter for each day of delay as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rankak & Others v, Rewa Coal, Fields Ltd AIR 1962 SC 361, Madhu Dadha v. ACIT (Mad) 317 ITR 458. In this case the appellant has not discharged this onus either. To conclude the appellant also fails the test that made it obligatory on the appellant to have acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of his appeal as has been held in Brij Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917 PC 156 and M. Loganathan v. CIT (Mad) 302 ITR 139. On the basis…

Shri Abdul Haque, Coonoor vs. ITO, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2159/CHNY/2011[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2159/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 Shri Abdul Haque, The Income Tax Officer, No.6, Surya Garden, Bharathi Colony, Vs. Ward Ii(4) (I/C), Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004. Coimbatore - 18. [Pan:Agpka3534H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) I, Coimbatore, Dated 03.12.2010 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, It Was Found That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 294 Days.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

…ioned the actual days of delay in filing the appeal. Moreover, there was no sufficient reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. 5 I.T.A. No.2159/M/11 14. The decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madhu Dadha v. ACIT [2009] 317 ITR 458, “wherein the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the order of this Tribunal since the assessee had not taken proper plea to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal”. In the present case, the negligent attitude of the assessee cannot be taken care to preserve the right of appeal s…