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.

Harpal Singh, 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 262/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 Priaydarshi 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 in turn the auditor sought for a opinion from tax advocate. The papers were misplaced in the advocate’s office and hence the appeal could not be filed in time. Accordin…

Delhi Agroha Vikas Trust, Delhi vs. CIT(E) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 9349/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2020

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

…ector of Land Acquisition V Master kastiji -167ITR 471 (SC) 2. G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [1998] 2 SCC 3. N.Balkrishnan V M.M.Krishna Murthy AIR 1998 se 3222 4. Office of the Chief Post Master General Versus Living Media India Ltd. 2012 348 ITR 7 5. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 ITA No. 9348 & 9349/Del./2019 6. State of MP Vs. Pradeep Kumar (2000) 7 SC 372, 376-77) cited on page no. 12747 In Book of Shri Chaturvedi and Pithisaria. 7.Theprincipleratios which emerge out of the aforestated judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court are as under: (i) Any appeal or any applica…

Delhi Agroha Vikas Trust, Delhi vs. CIT(E) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 9348/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2020

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Asian Infra Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in the same manner

ITA 5584/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Michael Jerald-Ld. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Paras Nath & Jitendra

…has been placed, ITA Nos.5583-84/Mum/2016 Asian infraprojects Private Limited Assessment Years-2009-10 & 2011-12 inter-alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Office of the Chief Post Master General & or V/s Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (348 ITR 7) for the plea that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government Departments. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in P.K.Ramachandran V/s State of Kerala & Anr. (7 SCC 556). The Ld. AR also drew attention to the fact that during appellate proceedings,…

The Mahendergarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mahendergarh vs. ACIT, Rewari

In the result, appeal of assessee dismissed being time barred

ITA 3203/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…of delay in filing the appeal. Whatever contention was raised at the time of hearing of the appeal, was not supported by any evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of Post Master General& Others vs., Living Media India Ltd., & Others [2012] 348 ITR 7 (SC) held that “considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for delay, except mentioning of various dates, the Department had failed to give acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that “Government Departments are under a special oblig…

Sri Panchamal Ganesh Shenoy (HUF), Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2), Mangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri R.N.Siddapaji, Addl.CIT

Section 264Section 271(1)Section 274

…to the receipt of the date of assessment order which he failed to do so. 8. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in relying on the following judgement; a) Chief Postmaster General and Others Vs Living Media India ltd. 5 ITA No.3555/De1/2009 Asst. Year 200203(2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC). ITA No.256& 6(B)/2018 4 b) Pundlik Jalam Patil(dead) by LRS vs Executive Engineer, Jalgon Medium Project (2008) 17SCC 448. c) Vedabai alias Vijayantabai Naburoa Patil Vs Shantaram Baburoa Patil 125 STC 375 SC. d) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji 1987 SC 1353. e) Case of SRF Ltd. New Delhi Vs Assess on 14 November, 2014, the ITAT De…

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd(Kuriannoor Branch), Kumbanad P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO (TDS), Alappuzha

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

ITA 280/COCH/2019[2013-14 (27Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jul 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 200ASection 234E

…, we are not satisfied with the reasons filed before the CIT(A) so as to condone the delay in filing the appeals. 6.1 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) 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 taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They canno…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Container Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1364/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kirshnan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

…submitted that the revenue does still not explain delay of 390 days out of the total delay. He therefore, stated that the filing of the above appeal do not deserve the condonation of delay. He vehemently relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 348 ITR 7, Rajasthan High Court in 304 ITR 166, Delhi High Court 287 ITR 52 and Calcutta High Court in 279 ITR 339 stating that delay is not bona fide, afterthought and an attempt to take advantage of oversight by the revenue. He further referred to the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA NO. 1278/2010 in assessee‟s own case dated 31.08.2010 wherein…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. D.K. Jain, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1485/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahuacit D. K. Jain Circle – 32(1) D-19, Nazamuddin East, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam JainFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT D. K. Jain Circle – 32(1) D-19, Nazamuddin East, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi GIR/PAN: AAKPJ4559P (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain Sh. Piyush Kamal Sh. Lalit Mohan Singh, Advs. Date of hearing : 15.11.2017 : 17.11.2017 Date of pronouncement O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M : 1. This appeal by revenue has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)–XXVI, New Delhi, dated 18.06.2010 for assessm…

D.C.I.T Cir - 2, Kolkata vs. M/S Amri Hospital Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of assessee’s CO is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 807/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…, Land Acquisition V Master kastiji - 167 ITR 471 (SC). 2. G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [1998] 2 SCC 142 3. N.Balkrishnan V M.M.Krishna Murthy AIR 1998 se 3222. 4. Office ofthe Chief Post Master General Versus Living Media India Ltd. 2012 348 ITR 7 in which above three and many other judgments were considered. 5. State of MP Vs. Pradeep Kumar (2000) 7 SC 372, 376-77) cited on page no. 12747 In Book of Shri Chaturvedi and Pithisaria (vol 8) Sixth edition 2014, in which the following summary is given: " ... Even a vigilant litigant is prone to commit mistakes. As the aphorism 'to err is human'…