Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 144, Section 148, Section 250, Section 142(1), Section 144B.

Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.?

50 judgments on BharatTax cite Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (348 ITR 7), spanning 2017 to 2026.

348 ITR 7Supreme Court of India2012#2299 most cited

What is Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. authority for?

The law of limitation applies to all, including the government. Condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a party to demonstrate sufficient, bona fide, and reasonable cause, as courts should not condone delays mechanically or for routine explanations, gross negligence, or inaction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. · 2012 SC · 348 ITR 7 · condonation of delay · law of limitation · Section 249 · Section 253 · sufficient cause · reasonable cause · strict application of limitation · government delay · gross negligence

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 347207 Taxmann 163

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 144 Section 148 Section 250 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 270A Section 271AAC(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 3(1)section 249(3)legal representative section 253(5)section 249(2)section 249 delay in filing appeal section 246 section 24 section 246a reasonable cause condonation of delay

Judgments citing Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.

Rain Cements, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 540/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 246A

…ed to condone the delay in the filing of such applications.” 13. Further, it is well settled law by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court yet in another decision in the case of O/o. Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs., Living Media India Ltd., & Anr. [2012] 348 ITR 7 (SC) that, Law of Limitation has to be applied with all its rigor and liberal approach cannot be extended to cases of gross negligence or inaction. 14. Further, u/sec.253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such powers can be exercised only upon showing of ‘sufficient cause’ preventing the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed period.…

Dinesh Daga, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 472/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…c dates, supporting evidences or cogent material to demonstrate bonafides. It is well settled law by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court yet in another decision in the case of O/o. Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs., Living Media India Ltd., & Anr. [2012] 348 ITR 7 (SC) that, Law of Limitation has to be applied with all its rigor and liberal approach cannot be extended to cases of gross negligence or 17 ITA.No.472/Hyd./2024 inaction. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that, the assessee has failed to explain delay and the circumstances beyond the contro…

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemptions) Circle 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed & Shri Ayush Chhajed, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 253(5)Section 263

…ment order pursuant to the order u/s 263 of the Act and when it did not receive a clean assessment order, it filed the appeal against the order framed u/s 263 of the Act. In case of Office of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd. & Anr (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC), while refusing to condone the delay Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. In case of Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heirs, 2024 SCC Online SC 489, The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that delay should not be excluded as a matt…

Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2)(1), Bengaluru vs. Jayantilal Bhagwanchand, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the CO of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1180/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

…te sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In our humble opinion, the reasons given by the AO would not constitute the “sufficient cause”, the averments made by the AO are general in nature. This reminds us to the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 348 ITR 7(SC) in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master Vs. Living Media India Ltd., wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 12 & 13 has observed as under: “12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a…

Punjab National Bank, Thrissur vs. The ITO(TDS), Thrissur

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

ITA 311/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 154Section 201

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member ITA No.311/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 Punjab National Bank The Income Tax Officer Palace Road Branch (TDS), Thrissur. v. Thrissur – 680 020. PAN : AAACP0165G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 Date of Hearing : 20.01.2025. O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM : The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals…

Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 57/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Balram R Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 250

…ITA No.57/Bang/2024 Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shivamogga IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shimoga Urban Development Authority 1 Suda Complex, 100 Ft Road Vinobanagar Vs. ITO Ward-1 Shivamogga 577 201 Shimoga PAN NO : AAALS2328H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Balram R Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 O R D E R PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present ap…

Amit Vyas, Ujjain vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Ujjain

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 510/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

…d, then the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits by condoning the delay.” 6.3 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd in I.T.A. No. 3555/Del/2009 A.Y. 2002-03 and another (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC) and in the case of Pundik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 S.C. 448 had held that “when the conduct of the assessee and facts of the case clearly show the neglected of its own right in preferring appeals, then it is not expected from the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to inquire into b…

Mr. Thatigundla Prabhakar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 581/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

…ral and it does not explain the delay except stating that the delay was due to improper advice of Tax Consultant. 5.1 The Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd, and Another, reported in (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC) Mr. Thatigundla Prabhakar, Bangalore Page 6 of 8 while dealing with the condonation of delay application by the State, has observed as under :- "12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period o f limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a…

DCIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Manaksia Aluminium Co. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 92/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos.92, 281/KOL/2021(A.Y. 2014-15) Manaksia Aluminium Co. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 92/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & I.T.A. No. 281/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.........Appellant Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8th floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- M/s. Manaksia Aluminium Co. Limited,.....Respondent 8/1, Lalbazar Street, Bikaner Building, Kolkata-700001 [PAN: AAGCM4560N] Appearances by: Shri Sunil Kr…

DCIT-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Manaksia Aluminium Co. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 281/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur vs. Meserss Chhattisgarh Stateelectricity Board, Raipur

ITA 31/RPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…mitation was liable to be dismissed at the threshold on the said count itself. The Ld. A.R, in support of his contention above, had relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment, viz. Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC). Referring to the aforesaid judgment, the ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that in the absence of acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone the delay involved in filing an appeal by the Government department, the same was to be dismissed 24 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity B…

Rashmi Jain, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2) Jaipur, Ward 6 (2) Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 134/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Then Cit(A)-2, Jaipur With In 2 Smt. Rashmi Jain Vs Ito,Ward 6(2), Jaipur Prescribed Limitation U/S 249(2) Of The I.T. Act I.E. 30 Days From The Service Of The Impugned Assessment Order (Ii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Reproducing The Reason For Delay By The Appellant Like ‘’Ipse Dixit’’ (Iii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Appears Erred In Applying Judicial Precedent For Dismissing The Appeal While The Precedents Are Supporting To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 249(2)Section 41(1)

…r its right ignoring the statute of limitation and without giving sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay. The Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd, and Another, reported in (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC) while dealing with the condonation of delay application by the State, has observed as under- ‘’12 It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for 5 SMT. RASHMI JAIN VS ITO,WARD 6(2), JAIPUR taking up the matter by way of filing a special…

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2354/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…elying on the judicial decisions of Honble Supreme court , Honble High court and Honble tribunal on the disputed issues of delay in filling the appeal. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd (348 ITR 7)(SC) has observed as under Head notes: Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Supreme Court Appeals to Whether, where appellant, a Government department, filed appeal with a delay of 427 days and there was no proper explanation offered by Department for delay except mentioning of various dates, it was to be concluded that Department had miserabl…

Tata Communications (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 555/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 271(1)(b)

…ok time and there was a delay of 140 days in filing both these appeals due to the bonafide hardships stated above. 3. The CIT(Appeals) cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Postmaster General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC), Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs v. Ex. Engineer (2008) 17 SCC 488 (SC), Vedabai @ Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 125 STC 375 (SC), Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) SC 1353 and other decisions and was of the view that the explanation of the assessee for sufficient cause in the delay was not supported…

Tata Communications (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 554/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 271(1)(b)

State Bank of India, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (TDS), Circle -3(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1621/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 10(5)Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)Section 249(3)

…he issue, it is observed that the appellant is negligent in filing the appeal resulting in delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Ltd. and another ITA No.3555/Del/2009 Asst.Year 2002-03 (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC) and in the case of Pundik Jalam Patil (dead) LRS v. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Projeject (2008) 17 SCC 448 had held that when the conduct of the assessee and facts of the case clearly show the neglect of its own right in preferring appeals, then it is not expected from the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to inquire into belated…

M/S. Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward- 18(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 1078/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni., JCIT-DR

…e, it is observed that the Appellant is negligent in filing the appeal resulting in delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Postmaster General and Others vs Living Media India Ltd. And Another 5 ITA No. 35551/Del/2009 Asstt. Year: 2002-03 (2012) 348 ITR 7(SC) and in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17SCC 448 had held that when the conduct of the assessee and facts of the case clearly show the neglect of its own right in preferring appeals, then it is not expected from the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to inquire into belated…

Bhruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [Bbmp], Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer [TDS], Ward- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 99/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. V.Chandrasekar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R.)

Section 194LSection 201Section 201(1)

…is regard referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramla v. Rewa Coalfields (AIR 1962 SC 361) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 7. The CIT(A) accordingly refused to condone the delay. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal. Apart from challenging the action of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal was belatedly filed, the assessee has also challenged the orders of the AO on merits on the ground that simi…

Bhruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [Bbmp], Bengalore vs. Income Tax Officer, [TDS], Ward- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. V.Chandrasekar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R.)

Section 194LSection 201Section 201(1)

Smt.Gurusharan Kaur, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 263/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar &For Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 5

…d. CIT(A) has taken support of decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 and also the decision rendered in the case of Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 7. He also taken the view that the above said delay is an inordinate delay. 3. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the relevant documents were submitted by the assessee to his auditor and left for her home town. In the absence of digital signature of the assessee, the appeal could not be filed in filed in time. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no…