P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

7 SCC 556Reported decision1997#1941 most cited

What is P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala authority for?

The law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour, and courts cannot extend the period of limitation on mere equitable considerations or for casual explanations without sufficient cause. Parties must demonstrate diligence and a bona fide reason for the delay.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala · 7 SCC 556 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · law of limitation · strict application · equitable grounds · Section 249(3) · Income-tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 253(5)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 147Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250 of the Income-tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 256section 202section 66short deduction of tdssection 253(5)section 253(3)bona fide mistakesection 249(3)section 249(2)section 200a(1)delay in filing appealsection 249

Judgments citing P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 700/BANG/2024[2013-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the appellant.” (ii) Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, wherein held as under: “In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the cou…

M/S. S J S Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 327/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

…receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the appellant.” 4.9.2 Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, wherein held as under: “In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the cou…

Shilpaben Nileshbhai Gami, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Shilpaben Nieshbhai Gami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Omkarnagar Society, Ward 3(1)(5), Near Jalaram Temple, Bardoli- Surat 394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp 8678 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 31/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, "SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.372/SRT/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Shilpaben Nieshbhai Gami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Omkarnagar Society, Ward 3(1)(5), Near Jalaram Temple, Bardoli- Surat 394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACBPP 8678 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR 31/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 29/12/2023 आदेश / O…

New Higher Secondary School, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 55/COCH/2023[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

…. International Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd. [2004] 3 SCC 250, it is clarified that the law of limitation operates with all its rigour, and equitable considerations are out of place in applying the same. In P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala[1997] 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court again clarifies that the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even as it may harshly affect a particular party. The Hon’ble Court in CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H) holding, on a review of judicial precedents, including Ramachandran (supra), that delay could be condoned only…

New Higher Secondary School, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/COCH/2023[2015-16 (Qurt-3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

…. International Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd. [2004] 3 SCC 250, it is clarified that the law of limitation operates with all its rigour, and equitable considerations are out of place in applying the same. In P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala[1997] 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court again clarifies that the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even as it may harshly affect a particular party. The Hon’ble Court in CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H) holding, on a review of judicial precedents, including Ramachandran (supra), that delay could be condoned only…

New Higher Secondary School, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 53/COCH/2023[2015-16 QTR 2]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

…. International Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd. [2004] 3 SCC 250, it is clarified that the law of limitation operates with all its rigour, and equitable considerations are out of place in applying the same. In P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala[1997] 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court again clarifies that the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even as it may harshly affect a particular party. The Hon’ble Court in CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H) holding, on a review of judicial precedents, including Ramachandran (supra), that delay could be condoned only…

New Higher Secondary School, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 52/COCH/2023[2015-16 (QT1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

…. International Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd. [2004] 3 SCC 250, it is clarified that the law of limitation operates with all its rigour, and equitable considerations are out of place in applying the same. In P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala[1997] 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court again clarifies that the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even as it may harshly affect a particular party. The Hon’ble Court in CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H) holding, on a review of judicial precedents, including Ramachandran (supra), that delay could be condoned only…

Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Charitable and Educational Trust, Perambalur vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Gazhiabad

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 219/CHNY/2023[2014-15(24q)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 200A

…pproach and did not care to prefer further appeals. No sufficient or reasonable cause has been demonstrated before us justifying inordinate delay in filing of the appeal. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997; 7 SCC 556) has observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation, the delay is not to be condoned and the courts have to exercise discretion judiciously while condoning the delay. Similarly, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was held by same cou…

Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Charitable and Educational Trust, Perambalur vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Gazhiabad

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 218/CHNY/2023[2013-14(26q)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 200A

…pproach and did not care to prefer further appeals. No sufficient or reasonable cause has been demonstrated before us justifying inordinate delay in filing of the appeal. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997; 7 SCC 556) has observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation, the delay is not to be condoned and the courts have to exercise discretion judiciously while condoning the delay. Similarly, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was held by same cou…

Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Charitable and Educational Trust, Perambalur vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Gazhiabad

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 217/CHNY/2023[2013-14(Form24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 200A

…pproach and did not care to prefer further appeals. No sufficient or reasonable cause has been demonstrated before us justifying inordinate delay in filing of the appeal. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997; 7 SCC 556) has observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation, the delay is not to be condoned and the courts have to exercise discretion judiciously while condoning the delay. Similarly, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was held by same cou…

Moreind Automation (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 194/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathiyanarayanan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

…proach and did not care to prefer further appeals. No sufficient or reasonable cause has been demonstrated before us justifying inordinate delay in filing of the appeals. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997; 7 SCC 556) has observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation, the delay is not to be condoned and the courts have to exercise discretion judiciously while condoning the delay. Similarly, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was held by same cour…

Moreind Automation (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 193/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathiyanarayanan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

…proach and did not care to prefer further appeals. No sufficient or reasonable cause has been demonstrated before us justifying inordinate delay in filing of the appeals. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997; 7 SCC 556) has observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation, the delay is not to be condoned and the courts have to exercise discretion judiciously while condoning the delay. Similarly, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was held by same cour…

Moreind Automation (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 192/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathiyanarayanan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

…proach and did not care to prefer further appeals. No sufficient or reasonable cause has been demonstrated before us justifying inordinate delay in filing of the appeals. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997; 7 SCC 556) has observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation, the delay is not to be condoned and the courts have to exercise discretion judiciously while condoning the delay. Similarly, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was held by same cour…

Moreind Automation (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 191/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathiyanarayanan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

…proach and did not care to prefer further appeals. No sufficient or reasonable cause has been demonstrated before us justifying inordinate delay in filing of the appeals. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997; 7 SCC 556) has observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation, the delay is not to be condoned and the courts have to exercise discretion judiciously while condoning the delay. Similarly, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was held by same cour…

Moreind Automation (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 190/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathiyanarayanan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

…proach and did not care to prefer further appeals. No sufficient or reasonable cause has been demonstrated before us justifying inordinate delay in filing of the appeals. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997; 7 SCC 556) has observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation, the delay is not to be condoned and the courts have to exercise discretion judiciously while condoning the delay. Similarly, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was held by same cour…

The Official Liquidator of vs. Registrar of Trade Marks

CA/71/2018HC Karnataka16 Dec 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 151

…standi to raise the various issues and that the rights of the OL stands extinguished by limitation. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. P.K.Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556 2. Union of India Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, 1984 SCC Online Kar 5 3. Bhag Mal Vs. Munshi, (2007) 11 SCC 28 4. Lala Hem Chand Vs. Lala Pearey Lal &Ors - 39 - 19. Sri.S.S.Naganand and Sri.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Senior counsel appearing for Classic Legends have made the following submissions:- • That the trademarks are not…

Universal Energies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5297/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)

…cial precedents as available in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh And Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, 1981 AIR 1981 SC 733; Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013 Basawaraj & Anr.; Brijesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 1612 and P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556 he summed up the reasons for delay canvassed as under: - a) The company passed through some very severe crises during the last more than 2 years; b) Three major projects of the company namely Ram Garh, Chakulia & Godda Sunderpurpahari could not effectively take off and as a consequence there was massive debt burden on the company; c) The key person…

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

…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 assessee had submitted that there was direct nexus between interest income and interest expenditure as the assessee had given interest yielding loans out of interest-bearing funds. The learned first appellate authority, allowed the same to be assessable under the he…

M/S. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7042/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Neel Kanth Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)Section 80I

…lopment Corporation (2010) 5 SCC 459; Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and others (2010) 5 SCC 459; Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh (2010) 8 SCC 685; Union of India v. Ram Charan AIR 1964 SC 215; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556; Katari Suryanarayana v. Koppisetti Subba Rao (2009) 11 SCC 183; Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 183; Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106; and B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693. These aforesaid decisions, including Collector, Land Acquisition v/s Mst. Katiji (supra)…