Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

312 ITR 193High Court2008#6646 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 249(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 249(2)Section 253(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 249(2)section 249(3)section 249 delay in filing appeal section 24 condonation of delay reasonable cause prescribed appeal before the tribunal section 143(1)opportunity of being heard section 25

Judgments citing Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

ITA 669/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 669/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 cuke Ishan Arora The ITO, Vs. 38M, Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Ward-5(2), Raja Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADCPA7893E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sharma, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

JINNAGARA ERAIAH LAKSHMIDEVI ,BENGALURU vs. ITO WARD 5(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1384/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA

Section 250(6)

…issed as barred by limitation. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observed that it is a case of ordinate delay (as per the law propounded by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders reported 312 ITR 193). The Ld. Page 3 of 4 Jinnagara Eraiah Lakshmidevi DR could not refute the submission of the Ld. AR that the assessee hails from a rural background with limited High School education. It is a settled position of law that it is not the length of the delay rather the reasonable cause behind the delay is to be considered. Here we are dealing with a…

MADHURI SUNIL ZODE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

ITA 419/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e” within the meaning of law. The expression “sufficient cause” has been judicially interpreted to connote a cause which is beyond the control of the party and which falls within the realm of reasonable human conduct. In Ornate Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2008) 312 ITR 193 (Bom), the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court held that the test of sufficient cause is to be judged with reference to reasonableness and the conduct expected of a litigant acting with ordinary prudence. Likewise, in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556, Hon‟ble Supreme Court cautioned that the law of limitation has to be applied with all…

SHRI KHANDESHWAR SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 487/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Patsanstha Ltd. Mumbai C/O. Shantaram Jagtap, Ravji Sojpal Vs. 422, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Chawl No. 7, Room No.18, T.J. Vashi Railway Station Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400015 Complex, Vashi, Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Abyfs 0132 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

…Kathpaliya v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744 has held that refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, thus it would be a ground to condoning the delay. The Hon‟ble Supreme court in the case of Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2008) 312 ITR 193 (Bombay) held that expression 'sufficient cause' will always have relevancy to reasonableness and actions, which can be condoned by Court and it should fall within realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. In the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC) Hon‟ble Supreme Court hel…

RAHUL RAMESH EKTARE ,THANE vs. CIRCLE 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2886/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rahul Ramesh Ektare Circle 5(3)(1) 1101, Dahila, Runwal Garden City, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Balkum, Balukum S.O., Thane, Vs. Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400608 Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aafpe 5470 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin M Chavan, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

BETHANY NAVAJEEVAN PROVINCE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 661/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.P.V.Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 12A

…y the assessee with respect to the delay in the filing of appeal are too general in nature and do not constitute reasonable cause . These types of reasons have been strongly criticized by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders reported in 312 ITR 193(Bom). Further we cannot shut our eyes from the fact that assessee has not made any complaint against the chartered account for misleading him. Therefore, we hereby dismiss this appeal on the grounds of limitation itself. 5. ITA No.657/Coch/2024 being a duplicate appeal of ITA No.661/Coch/2024, dismissed as rendered infructuous. 6. In the result…

BETHANY NAVAJEEVAN PROVINCE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 657/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.P.V.Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 12A

MANECKJI RUSTOMJI PATEL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CPC, BANGALURU, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5290/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Maneckji Rustomji Patel Trust, Income Tax Cpc, Bangaluru, 5, 2Nd Floor, Oval View, 150 M. Karve Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Ward Vs. Road, Churchgate 25(2)(1), Mumbai-400020. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East. Pan No. Aadtm 1078 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh

Section 143(1)Section 154

…Hon’ble thus it would be a ground to condoning the delay. The Hon’ble thus it would be a ground to condoning the delay. The Hon’ble court in the case of Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2008) Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2008) Bombay court in the case of 312 ITR 193 (Bombay) 312 ITR 193 (Bombay) held that expression 'sufficient cause' will 'sufficient cause' will always have relevancy to reasonableness and actions, which can be always have relevancy to reasonableness and actions, which can be always have relevancy to reasonableness and actions, which can be condoned by Court and it should fall within realm o…

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 2089/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…ate delay and another one is inordinate delay. From the facts of the case, it is observed that it is a case of inordinate delay. Explaining the concept of ordinate delay and inordinate delay, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders reported in 312 ITR 193 has held that cases, where the delay is below 365 days, would fall in the category of ordinate delay and in such cases, the courts can exercise their discretion leniently vis-à-vis ITA Nos.1670&2089/Bang/2024 M/s. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 18 condoning the delay. Hon’ble Bombay High Court further held that cases where there is…

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 1670/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

ANAND GOVIND PARAB,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4705/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Anand Govind Parab Assessing Officer Assessment Unit Flat No. 12, C-11, 1St Floor, Income Tax Department Gayatri Cps Sector, Sanpada, Vs. Ito Ward 34(2)(2) G Block, Bkc Navi Mumbai-400 705 Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 249(2)Section 54Section 69C

…The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of OP Kathpaliya v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744 has held that refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2008) 312 ITR 193 (Bombay) held that expression 'sufficient cause' will always have relevancy to reasonableness and actions, which can be condoned by Court and it should fall within realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. In the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 6 Anand Govind Parab vs. ITO 5…

PURNIMA SHETTY,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 26(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3435/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumr Chauhan

Section 144Section 147

…hmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744 6 Purnima Shetty has held that refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, thus it would be a ground to condoning the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2008) 312 ITR 193 (Bombay) held that expression 'sufficient Cause will always have relevancy to reasonableness and actions, which can be condoned by Court and it should fall within realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. In the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held…

FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT LTD,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1) (1), AAYEKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

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

ITA 1787/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit 4(1)(1), Ratnam Square, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Plot No. 38/39, Sector 19A, Vs. Mumbai-400001. Maharashtra-400703. Pan No. Aaacf 0661 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModyFor Respondent: 08/07/2024

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 40

…age of justice, thus it would be a ground to condo it would be a ground to condoning the delay. The Hon’ble the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO Supreme court in the case of (2008) 312 ITR 193 (Bombay) (2008) 312 ITR 193 (Bombay) held that expression 'sufficient expression 'sufficient cause' will always have relevancy to reasona cause' will always have relevancy to reasonableness and actions, bleness and actions, which can be condoned by Court and it should fall within realm of which can be condoned by Court and it should fall within r…

RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 263

…08) Excise Law Times 331 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 502 days in filing the appeal ~lille observing that the application disclosed no satisfactory or reasonable explanation. In the case of Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (312 ITR 193), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that the application for condonation is without any content, reasonable or satisfactory explanation. It was obligatory upon the part of the applicant-UOl to reasonably explain the delay, may be, by not giving explanation for each day of delay but to explain the delay in a composite manner. It was further obser…

SANGRAM KESHARI SAMANTARAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 12/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…therein. Ld. DR objected to condone the delay and submitted that no sufficient cause for delay has been stated by the assessee, therefore, delay should not be condoned. In this regard, ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Ornate Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 312 ITR 193. 2 3. We have heard both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 224 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard on merits. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the order pas…

ATHASHRI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (E) -II(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 6590/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6590/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Athashri Foundation Assistant Director Of Income Tax 101, Somnath, Cts No.988 [Exemption]-Ii(2) बनाम/ Ram Mandir Road, Piramal Chamber Vs. Vile Parle (E) Lalbaug Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaata-8602-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenueby : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Yogesh Thar & Hardik Nirmal, Ld.Ar’S सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar & Hardik NirmalFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 25

…ITA No.6590/Mum/2016 Athashri Foundation Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी सी .नाग" "साद, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6590/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Athashri Foundation Assistant Director of Income Tax 101, Somnath, CTS No.988 [Exemption]-II(2) बनाम/ Ram Mandir Road, Piramal Chamber Vs. Vile Parle (E) Lalbaug Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.AAATA-8602-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (…

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

ITA 5073/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai-CIT-DR

Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 80H

…Ltd [AIR 1962 (SC) 361}, where the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the party has to show reason for delay on the last date of limitation and thereafter for each day since condonation is not a matter of right Further in the case of Ornet Properties vs. ITO [312 ITR 193] and CIT vs. Reliance Capital Ltd [322 ITR 252], it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court: that inordinate delay in ITA no.5073/Mum./2017 Reliance Industries Limited filing appeal are not condoned since dormant claims cannot he given new life. The Hon'ble High Court further clarified that those who sleep over their rights for a prolonged period c…