Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others

3 SCC 195Reported decision2002#2711 most cited

What is Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others authority for?

The expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or similar provisions must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. Courts should avoid a pedantic or hyper-technical approach, generally accepting explanations unless negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is evident.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sao · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · liberal construction · substantial justice · Section 5 Limitation Act · Income Tax Act Section 119 · procedural technicalities · bona fides · Order 22 Rule 9 CPC

Sections most often in play

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)(iii)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 119(1)section 66section 80g(5)(ii)section 52section 80g(5)(iv)pptsection 80g(5)(iii)trcsection 10(23c)section 246assistant director

Judgments citing Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others

Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 107/IND/2024[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 8Section 80G(5)

…ize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 23. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [2002] 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sikri on t…

Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3742/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY.S (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri K.Gopal and Om Kandalkar,AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…re satisfied that the delay in filing of the appeal before CIT(A) is for bonafide reasons narrated in Form No.35 filed before CIT(A) . 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 195) has held that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception. The Hon’ble Court held: "12…… There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault wit…

Shri. B.L. Nagendra Prasad, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1045/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

…of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank Et Others [2009] 9 SCC 733; and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu Et Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao at Others, reported in [2002] 3 SCC 195 and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited [2011] 334 ITR 269 [SC].” 2.3 In view of the above, the assessee could not file the appeal before this Tribunal well in time and by the time the appeal papers were prepared for filing, there arose delay of about…

Rabdi Vibhag Progressive Kelavni Mandal, Valsad vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 797/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…is expected to do so." I.T.A No. 797/Ahd/2023 Page No 14 Rabdi Vibhag Progressive Kelavni Mandal vs. CIT(E) 23. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [2002] 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sikri on t…

Manoj Kumar Lade, Mumbai vs. International Tax-Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3276/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 142(1)Section 144

…The assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing of appeal. The CIT(A) rejected assessee’s explanation stating it to be vague. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 195) has held that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception. The Hon’ble Court held: "12…… There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault wit…

M/S Desai & Co., Hubballi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Hubballi

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

ITA 152/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 249Section 250Section 36Section 40Section 40A

…emedy by way of appeal on mere technicalities in view of the landmark Apex Court judgement in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji reported in 167 ITR 471 [1987] and Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu& Others Vs. Gobardan Sao & Others, [2002] 3 SCC 195, ought to have exercised the discretion vested as per the provisions of section 249[3] of the Act in the most judicious manner to promote and uphold the substantial cause of justice, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without Prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in not adjudicating all the grounds…

Nawany Corporation India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 539/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.539/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2014-15) Nawany Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. 384/1, Bandana 15Th Road, Bandra (West)Mumbai 400 050 Pan: Aaacn-1471-D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit 13(1)(1), Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak P. Tikekar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2023

For Appellant: Shri Deepak P. TikekarFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

…intentional act on his part can be imputed. Wrong advice by a legal professional is a sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 195) has held that acceptance of explanation furnished explaining delay should be the rule and refusal, an exception. The Hon’ble Court held: "………….But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptanc…

Kunigal Thibbaiah Srinivasa, Kunigal vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tumakuru

In the result, appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed partly allowed

ITA 125/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Kunigal Thibbaiah Srinivasa, Vs. Ito, Behind Shanthamma Temple, Ward – 2, Mahaveera Nagar, Tumkur Road, Tumakuru. Kunigal – 572 130. Pan : Ennps 4678 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 11.10.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 81 Days In Filing This Appeal. In An Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal, It Has Been Stated That The First Appellate Authority Passed An Ex-Parte Order Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Not Educated. He Is Residing In Mofussil Areas I.E., Kunigal & Is Not Aware Of The Intricacies Of E-Tax Proceedings. He Therefore Did Not Respond To Notice Issued Nor Instructed His Tax Practitioner. The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Passing Of The Ex-Parte Order By The First Appellate Authority & Came To Know About The Same Only When He Received Notice For Recovery Of Outstanding Demand On 21.11.2022. It Has Also Been Submitted That The Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

…rther the assessee has also placed reliance on other decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank Et Others [2009] 9 SCC 733; Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu Et Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao 8c Others, reported in [2002] 3 SCC 195 and CIT Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited [2011] 334 ITR 269 [SC]. The crux of the ratio laid down in these decisions is to the effect that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of substantive justice, especially in tax proceedings and when there is no willful neglect on the part of the party see…

Mahesh K Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-II) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

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

ITA 3349/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3349/मुं/2013 ("न.व. 2008-09) Mahesh K. Faria, 71/73, 4Th Floor, Bazar Gate Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaapf-0587-F ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Osd-Ii), Central Range - 7 Mumbai. .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Hiral Sejpal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit –Dr & Ms. Vranda U Matkari-Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT –DR &
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153Section 153A

…g reason for delay in filing of the appeal, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of the appeal is prima-facie for bonafide cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors.( (2002) 3 SCC 195) has held that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception. The Hon’ble Apex Court held: "But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over- jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation…

Sri.Lokesh M, Lr of Smt Malathi Lokesh, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

ITA 293/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devrathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…n of delay, a pragmatic approach should be adopted. The following decisions were cited in support of the plea of assessee that in the matter of condonation of delay, a liberal approach should be adopted:- 1. Ram Nath Sao & Ors. Vs Gobagrdhan Sao & Ors (2002) 3 SCC 195 2. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi :& Ors (1979) 4 SCC 303 3. Collector, Land Acquisition & Ors. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107” 5. The ld. DR opposed the prayer for condonation of delay as according to him, there was no reasonable cause for the delay. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. The impugned orders u/s.…

Sri.Lokesh M, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devrathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…n of delay, a pragmatic approach should be adopted. The following decisions were cited in support of the plea of assessee that in the matter of condonation of delay, a liberal approach should be adopted:- 1. Ram Nath Sao & Ors. Vs Gobagrdhan Sao & Ors (2002) 3 SCC 195 2. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi :& Ors (1979) 4 SCC 303 3. Collector, Land Acquisition & Ors. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107” 5. The ld. DR opposed the prayer for condonation of delay as according to him, there was no reasonable cause for the delay. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. The impugned orders u/s.…

Naresh Karla (HUF), Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir 24(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7654/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA N0.7654/MUM/2016(A.Y. 2012-13) Naresh Karla (HUF) G-142, Oshiwara Tarapore Garden, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 053 PAN:AAAHN 1578A ...... Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.24(3),6th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai -400013. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Date of hearing : 12/09/2019 Date of pronouncement : 12/09/2019 ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:…

Naresh Karla (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7653/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA N0.7654/MUM/2016(A.Y. 2012-13) Naresh Karla (HUF) G-142, Oshiwara Tarapore Garden, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 053 PAN:AAAHN 1578A ...... Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.24(3),6th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai -400013. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Date of hearing : 12/09/2019 Date of pronouncement : 12/09/2019 ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Stellar Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5122/DEL/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2000-01 Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Vs. M/S. Stellar Capital Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd., 325, Vardhman Grand Plaza, Mangalam Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacs3356A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2000-01 Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Vs. M/s. Stellar Capital Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd., 325, Vardhman Grand Plaza, Mangalam Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi (PAN: AAACS3356A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Kapil Goyal, Adv. Date of hearing 23.12.2015 Date of pronouncement 24.02.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: The present appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 13.06.2013 of lear…

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA/1124/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

…10. I 104/2010, llr2l2010 &" ll24l20 l0 I'age l9 ol'22 8v 23 In N. Balahtshtnn t,. M. I*'ishrnnmrlh.y, (1998) 7 SCC 123 thc Supt'ctttc Court again reiterated the approach In Ram Nalh Sao (a) ftcrm Nalh Su]ru curcl Or's I".s' Gobarc{han Sao and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supretne (ltxtt't that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the mle and relusal, zrn exception, ll1ore so when no negligence or iltzrctiou or rva-nt ol lxttrtt .fitle's can I'te rlrputcd to t5e defaulting party In the present case, the Tribunal has fotrtld lltat tlrc assessee - society has taken prompt rernedial…

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA/775/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

…10. I 104/2010, llr2l2010 &" ll24l20 l0 I'age l9 ol'22 8v 23 In N. Balahtshtnn t,. M. I*'ishrnnmrlh.y, (1998) 7 SCC 123 thc Supt'ctttc Court again reiterated the approach In Ram Nalh Sao (a) ftcrm Nalh Su]ru curcl Or's I".s' Gobarc{han Sao and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supretne (ltxtt't that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the mle and relusal, zrn exception, ll1ore so when no negligence or iltzrctiou or rva-nt ol lxttrtt .fitle's can I'te rlrputcd to t5e defaulting party In the present case, the Tribunal has fotrtld lltat tlrc assessee - society has taken prompt rernedial…

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA/1112/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

…10. I 104/2010, llr2l2010 &" ll24l20 l0 I'age l9 ol'22 8v 23 In N. Balahtshtnn t,. M. I*'ishrnnmrlh.y, (1998) 7 SCC 123 thc Supt'ctttc Court again reiterated the approach In Ram Nalh Sao (a) ftcrm Nalh Su]ru curcl Or's I".s' Gobarc{han Sao and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supretne (ltxtt't that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the mle and relusal, zrn exception, ll1ore so when no negligence or iltzrctiou or rva-nt ol lxttrtt .fitle's can I'te rlrputcd to t5e defaulting party In the present case, the Tribunal has fotrtld lltat tlrc assessee - society has taken prompt rernedial…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA-754/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 12ASection 260ASection 263Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 20 of 22 23. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Ors Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee – society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sik…

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA - 1124 / 2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

…lr2l2010 &" ll24l20 l0 I'age l9 ol'22 2012:DHC:7826-DB 8v 23 In N. Balahtshtnn t,. M. I*'ishrnnmrlh.y, (1998) 7 SCC 123 thc Supt'ctttc Court again reiterated the approach In Ram Nalh Sao (a) ftcrm Nalh Su]ru curcl Or's I".s' Gobarc{han Sao and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supretne (ltxtt't that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the mle and relusal, zrn exception, ll1ore so when no negligence or iltzrctiou or rva-nt ol lxttrtt .fitle's can I'te rlrputcd to t5e defaulting party In the present case, the Tribunal has fotrtld lltat tlrc assessee - society has taken prompt rernedial…

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA - 1104 / 2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

…lr2l2010 &" ll24l20 l0 I'age l9 ol'22 2012:DHC:7826-DB 8v 23 In N. Balahtshtnn t,. M. I*'ishrnnmrlh.y, (1998) 7 SCC 123 thc Supt'ctttc Court again reiterated the approach In Ram Nalh Sao (a) ftcrm Nalh Su]ru curcl Or's I".s' Gobarc{han Sao and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supretne (ltxtt't that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the mle and relusal, zrn exception, ll1ore so when no negligence or iltzrctiou or rva-nt ol lxttrtt .fitle's can I'te rlrputcd to t5e defaulting party In the present case, the Tribunal has fotrtld lltat tlrc assessee - society has taken prompt rernedial…