Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project

17 SCC 448Supreme Court of India2008#1397 most cited

What is Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project authority for?

The Supreme Court emphasizes that courts assist only those who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights, establishing a stricter approach against condoning significant or unexplained delays in filing appeals.

82

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pundlik Jalam Patil · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · Section 5 Limitation Act · Section 253(5) · vigilance · sufficient cause · appellate proceedings · unexplained delay · slumber over rights

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project

M/S. SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 4520/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S Sai Builders & Developers. B12, Ashiana, Plot No.15, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan/Gir No: Abbfs0092C (Appellant) Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-27. It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai-400703. (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Shri Shashank Mehta Shri Vivek Perampurna, Cit-Dr 07.01.2026 28.01.2026 Order Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘Act') By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-27 Dated 16.03.2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Cit, Mumbai-27 Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify, Amend Or Substitute All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal." 1

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 263

…2.1987. There was delay only 4 days in the said case. However, we find that in the subsequent decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024, it has been held that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the 4 ITA No.4520/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 M/s Sai Builders…

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1566/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

…com 361 (Mad). 16. In this case the Hon’ble Madras High Court has refused to condone the delay of 1072 days in filing the appeal, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pundik Jalam Patil v Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Projec [(2008) 17 SCC 448] where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court would help only those who are vigilant and not those who slumber over their rights. 17. It can be noted that this decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court was rendered in the case where the assessee was a company which would have been supported by various Chartered Accountants and Advo…

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

…com 361 (Mad). 16. In this case the Hon’ble Madras High Court has refused to condone the delay of 1072 days in filing the appeal, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pundik Jalam Patil v Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Projec [(2008) 17 SCC 448] where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court would help only those who are vigilant and not those who slumber over their rights. 17. It can be noted that this decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court was rendered in the case where the assessee was a company which would have been supported by various Chartered Accountants and Advo…

HITECH FLYASH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3105/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3105/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Hitech Fly Ash India Pvt Ltd., Acit, 2/101-5, Thiruchendur Road, Income Tax Office Muthiahpuram Tuticorn, Tirunelveli, Nellai City Centre Tuticorin-628005, Tiruchendup. Road Tamil Nadu Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli-627011 [Pan: Aabch 7093 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" यथ"/Respondent)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ीमनुकुमारिग"र, "ाियकसद" एवं "ीएस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखासद"केसम" BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.3105/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 v. HITECH FLY ASH INDIA PVT LTD., ACIT, 2/101-5, Thiruchendur Road, Income Tax Office Muthiahpuram Tuticorn, Tirunelveli, Nellai City Centre Tuticorin-628005, Tiruchendup. Road Tamil Nadu Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli-627011 [PAN: AABCH 7093 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क! ओर से/ A…

Showing 120 of 82 · Page 1 of 5