Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy

12 SCC 693Reported decision2012#2431 most cited

What is Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy authority for?

When considering an application for condonation of delay, courts must adopt a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach, understanding 'sufficient cause' in its proper spirit to serve the ends of justice and avoid legalizing injustice.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy · 12 SCC 693 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · liberal approach · substantial justice · Section 249(3) · Section 250 · delay in filing appeal · reasonable cause · Section 5 Limitation Act

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy

Usman Vali Patel, Bharuch Gujarat vs. Ward 1(2), Income Tax Officer, Bharuch

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

ITA 183/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Usman Vali Patel, Vs. Ito, A-14 Assd Park, Near Khwaja Ward – 1(2), Township, Bharuch - 392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aykpp8165B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Krutarth Desai, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.183/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Usman Vali Patel, Vs. ITO, A-14 ASSD Park, Near Khwaja Ward – 1(2), Township, Bharuch - 392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AYKPP8165B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Krutarth Desai, AR Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 03/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanate…

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)

…v. Collector, Land Acqusition vs. MST. Katji & Ors. vi. CIT vs. S. Duraipandi & Ors vi. Kaikara Construction Co. vs. Jt. CIT, Kollam vii. Vedabai Aoias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil viii. B. Badhuri Goud vs. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693. 3. We have duly considered the issue. In view of the circumstances enumerated by the assessee in her petition, in the interest of justice, we admit the case of the assessee to be taken up on its merits. 2 A.Y. 2016-17 Seema 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from business and profession as also income from other sour…

Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (12 SCC 693) — Cited in 47 Judgments | BharatTax