Mela Ram & Sons. v. CIT

29 ITR 607Supreme Court of India1956#4026 most cited

What is Mela Ram & Sons. v. CIT authority for?

An appeal presented out of time is still an appeal, and an order dismissing it as time-barred is an order passed in appeal. An appeal decided without considering the delay is required to be decided on condonation of delay even if admitted.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT · 29 ITR 607 · SC · condonation of delay · appeal out of time · dismissal as time-barred · appellate power · admitting appeal

Sections most often in play

Section 115BACSection 119Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 200ASection 234ESection 250(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(viia)section 250(6)condonation of delayprescribedpersonsection 143section 13section 14indiabusinesscompanysection 143(3)

Judgments citing Mela Ram & Sons. v. CIT

VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

ITA 443/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

…enclosed herewith for ready reference. 3. It is therefore, requested that the delay in filing the appeal on account of exceptional circumstances, may, please, be condoned and oblige in view of the judgement laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC) in which it was held as under: - 8. It is observed that even in the present case, the applications filed by the assessee before the Id. CIT(Appeals) seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeals for all the three years under consideration were duly supported by an affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the medical certificates an…

M/S.KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 264/COCH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 36(1)(viia)

…a positive, conscious decision, and we may not be for that reason construed as having 2 Kollam District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, Circle - 1 condoned the delay. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC). In the facts of the case, which stands also applied in K.H. Traders v. CIT [2013] 351 ITR 1 (Ker), the appeal was decided in the first instance by the first appellate authority on merits, oblivious of the delay attending its filing. The restoration thereto for considering the same, challenged on the ground of the appeal having been already d…

M/S.KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 263/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 36(1)(viia)

…a positive, conscious decision, and we may not be for that reason construed as having 2 Kollam District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, Circle - 1 condoned the delay. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC). In the facts of the case, which stands also applied in K.H. Traders v. CIT [2013] 351 ITR 1 (Ker), the appeal was decided in the first instance by the first appellate authority on merits, oblivious of the delay attending its filing. The restoration thereto for considering the same, challenged on the ground of the appeal having been already d…

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 933/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Kerala State Financial Dy. CIT, Circle - 1(1) & TPS Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [PAN:AABCT3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CA Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 16.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the dismissal of it’s appeal contesting it’s assessment under section 143(3…

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA 882/BANG/2023[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.882 to 890/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 The Child Development Project The Asst. Commissioner of Officer, Income-tax, Department of Women and Child Vs. Central Processing Cell, Kuvempu Road, TDS. Basavanagudi, Shivamogga. TAN : BLRC 03390 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Hemant Pai, C.A Revenue by : Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH All these appeal…

MURALI MOHAN VISWANADHUNI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 558/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 2(47)

…ore the Ld. CIT(A) and to admit the appeal. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not raising any objection on the delay in presenting the appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal as required as per Supreme Court decision in the case of Mela Ram & sons vs CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607(S.C.) 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO has reopened the assessment made u/ s 147 which is purely based upon borrowed satisfaction without performing any necessary enquiries or inspection which is against the provisions of the IT Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO erred in passing the…

M/S.PATHANMTHITTA DIST. CO-OP BANK LTD,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable and, in any case, without merit

ITA 431/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daspathanamthitta District Dy. Cit, Circle- 1 Co-Op Bank Ltd. Thiruvalla Near Ksrtc Bus Stand Vs. Mylapara Road Pathanamthitta 689645 [Pan:Aabfp9182H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aswin Gopakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…e Sheet, which were in vernacular, in english. It was only on 14/9/2023, on which date the hearing was resumed, that the said delay, on being observed by the Bench, was put across to Shri Gopakumar. Reference in the matter may be made to Mela Ram & Sons[1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC), explaining that an appeal presented out of time is an appeal, and an order dismissing it as time barred is one passed in appeal. An appeal decided oblivious of it being delayed, was yet required to be decided on the condonation of delay despite it having been admitted. 4. The first issue on merits is the disallowance of provision for expens…

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 265/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

…tax matters were looked after by the director who was admitted in AAIMs hospital New Delhi for endovascular surgery. Following honourable apex court judgment on condonation of delay in filing the appeal on account of exceptional circumstances citation [1956] 29 ITR 607; the said delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various…

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 264/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

…tax matters were looked after by the director who was admitted in AAIMs hospital New Delhi for endovascular surgery. Following honourable apex court judgment on condonation of delay in filing the appeal on account of exceptional circumstances citation [1956] 29 ITR 607; the said delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various…

SRI CHANNABASAVESHWARA SWAMY RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,TUMKUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 582/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

…T. KATIJI AND OTHERS reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471, in the case of CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs SMT. NIRMALA DEVI AND OTHERS reported in 118 ITR 507 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. MELA RAM & SONS Vs CIT (PUNJAB) reported in 29 ITR 607. He also relied on the decision of recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Page 5 of 12 ITA Nos. 582 to 592/Bang/2023 WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTFINANCE CORP, where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delay should be condoned and matters to be heard on merits, when the stakes involved are high. 12. The Ld.DR though obje…

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 909/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

…not tantamount to a deemed condonation of the delay, as may well be argued. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mela ITA Nos. 908 & 909/Coch/2022 (AYs: 2010-11& 11-12) Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-operative Society Ltd.v. ITOO Ram and Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC) clarified that not admitting an appeal for any reason also amounts to deciding it, i.e., it is as much an order u/s. 31 (corresponding to s. 250(6) of the Act) as an order dismissing the appeal on merits. There is, thus, clearly no question of a deemed condonation– a non-existent concept, either by the ld. CIT(A) in passing the impugned order…

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD -1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 908/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

…not tantamount to a deemed condonation of the delay, as may well be argued. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mela ITA Nos. 908 & 909/Coch/2022 (AYs: 2010-11& 11-12) Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-operative Society Ltd.v. ITOO Ram and Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC) clarified that not admitting an appeal for any reason also amounts to deciding it, i.e., it is as much an order u/s. 31 (corresponding to s. 250(6) of the Act) as an order dismissing the appeal on merits. There is, thus, clearly no question of a deemed condonation– a non-existent concept, either by the ld. CIT(A) in passing the impugned order…

SMT. ANURADHA UPADHYAY,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 22/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

…s, slow to adopt a construction which deprives the parties of valuable rights inasmuch as when the right of appeal is not preferred within the time prescribed therefor, the other side acquires a valuable right (refer, inter alia, Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC)). The plea is, for the reasons afore-stated, without basis, both on facts and in law. 8. Ground 5 is, again, a vague Gd., which stands explained by Sh. Ghai to be agitating the revision as the copy of the reasons recorded in the assessment proceedings for the assessment subject to revision were not furnished to the assessee despite the AO be…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

…s, slow to adopt a construction which deprives the parties of valuable rights inasmuch as when the right of appeal is not preferred within the time prescribed therefor, the other side acquires a valuable right (refer, inter alia, Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC)). The plea is, for the reasons afore-stated, without basis, both on facts and in law. 8. Ground 5 is, again, a vague Gd., which stands explained by Sh. Ghai to be agitating the revision as the copy of the reasons recorded in the assessment proceedings for the assessment subject to revision were not furnished to the assessee despite the AO be…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 20/JAB/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

…s, slow to adopt a construction which deprives the parties of valuable rights inasmuch as when the right of appeal is not preferred within the time prescribed therefor, the other side acquires a valuable right (refer, inter alia, Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC)). The plea is, for the reasons afore-stated, without basis, both on facts and in law. 8. Ground 5 is, again, a vague Gd., which stands explained by Sh. Ghai to be agitating the revision as the copy of the reasons recorded in the assessment proceedings for the assessment subject to revision were not furnished to the assessee despite the AO be…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 19/JAB/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

…s, slow to adopt a construction which deprives the parties of valuable rights inasmuch as when the right of appeal is not preferred within the time prescribed therefor, the other side acquires a valuable right (refer, inter alia, Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC)). The plea is, for the reasons afore-stated, without basis, both on facts and in law. 8. Ground 5 is, again, a vague Gd., which stands explained by Sh. Ghai to be agitating the revision as the copy of the reasons recorded in the assessment proceedings for the assessment subject to revision were not furnished to the assessee despite the AO be…

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…In fact, when the Ld. CIT (A) has decided the issue on merits there could be a presumption that the Ld. CIT (A) has condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him. Further, the decision relied by the Ld. DR in the case Mela Ram & Sons vs. CIT reported in 29 ITR 607 does not support the case of the Revenue. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court applied the ratio that if an appeal by the assessee is admitted without the fact of delay in its presentation having been noticed, it is open to the Department to raise the objection at the time of hearing of the appeal. However, in the case of the assessee the assessee had…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…In fact, when the Ld. CIT (A) has decided the issue on merits there could be a presumption that the Ld. CIT (A) has condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him. Further, the decision relied by the Ld. DR in the case Mela Ram & Sons vs. CIT reported in 29 ITR 607 does not support the case of the Revenue. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court applied the ratio that if an appeal by the assessee is admitted without the fact of delay in its presentation having been noticed, it is open to the Department to raise the objection at the time of hearing of the appeal. However, in the case of the assessee the assessee had…

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(4), KANPUR vs. SMT. SANDHYA AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable/

ITA 39/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year 2015-16 Income Tax Officer-1(4), Sandhya Agarwal, Kanpur 510-511, City Centre, 63/2, The Mall, Kanpur [Pan: Aczpa 6212H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ajay Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By None (Application For Withdrawal) Date Of Hearing 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23/11/2021 O R D E R

Section 143(3)

…to be condoned, for which a condonation petition dated 30/12/2019 stands furnished along with the memo of appeal, before it’s appeal could be decided by the Tribunal on merits. The same, however, as explained by the Apex Court in Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC), is integral to and forms part of the adjudication of an appeal, which therefore is to be regarded as admitted and liable to be decided by the Tribunal. The Revenues’s appeal, therefore, is dismissed as withdrawn/not maintainable. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable/ withdrawn. Order…

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1194/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 140ASection 144Section 208

…ision in Shamraj Moorjani Vs. DCIT (2005) 93 TTJ (Hyd) 927 takes into consideration various case law i.e., i. CIT Vs. Filmistan Ltd., [42 ITR 163] (SC); ii. Anil Sanghi Vs. ACIT (2003) [85 ITD 73]; (ITAT, Delhi, Special Bench); iii. Mela Ram and Sons Vs. CIT [29 ITR 607] (SC); to hold that appeals filed before the CIT(A) should be deemed as properly filed on the date of payment of admitted tax on returned income, though the memo of appeal was presented within time and all that remains for consideration before the CIT(A) is whether the delay ought be condoned or not. We follow the very course of action herein as…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

Mela Ram & Sons. v. CIT (29 ITR 607) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax