Sitaram Ramcharan v. Nagarshana

1 SCR 875Reported decision1960#10949 most cited
9

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 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 133ASection 139Section 246ASection 249

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)section 195(1)section 275section 51section 271csection 249(3)vsv schemesection 282section 156section 249delay in filing appeal

Judgments citing Sitaram Ramcharan v. Nagarshana

HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. ITO, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarahemchand Chintaman Patil, Vs. Income Tax Officer 202, Lovely Palace No.2, Qureshi Mansion, Kharigaon, B. P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Gokhale Bhayander (East), Road, Naupada, Teen Thane - 401105. Haath Naka, Thane (W), Thane – 400602. Pan/Gir No. Amapp3180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. Dr.)

Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

…explain the delay made thereafter, day by day, till the actual date of the filing of the appeal. In other words, the whole of the delay must be explained [see, Ramlal v Rewa Coal fields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, 364; Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana, (1960) 1 SCR 875, 889 = AIR 1960 SC 260, 265- 66; J.B. Advani& Co., Pr. Debi, AIR 1978 SC 537, 542; Saoorajmall Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre& Products, AIR 1969 Cal 381, 384; Bhaktipada Majhi vs. SDO, AIR 1971 Cal 204]. 2.6 However, while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to…

KOLHAPUR MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2778/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 36(1)(viia)

…explain the delay made thereafter, day by day, till the actual date of the filing of the appeal. In other words, the whole of the delay must be explained (see, Ramlal v Rewa Coal fields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, 364; Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana, (1960) 1 SCR 875, 889 AIR 1960 SC 260, 265-66; J.B. Advani& Co., Pr. Debi, AIR 1978 SC 537, 542; Saoorajmull Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre& Products, AIR 1969 Cal 381, 384; Bhaktipada Majhi vs. SDO, AIR 1971 Cal 204]. 4.5 However, while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay the authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to prov…

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 552/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 40

…t explain the delay made thereafter, day to day, till the actual date of the fling of the appeal, in other words, the whole of the delay must be explained [see, Ramlal v Rewa Coal fields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, 364; Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana, (1960) 1 SCR 875, 889- AIR 1960 SC 260, 265-66; J.B. Advani& Co., Pr. Debi, AIR 1978 SC 537, 542; SaoorajmallNagarmal v. Golden Fibres Products, AIR 1969 Cal 381, 384; Bhaktipada Majhi vs. SDO, AIR 1971 Cal 204]. 2.6 However, while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to pro…

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 551/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 40

…t explain the delay made thereafter, day to day, till the actual date of the fling of the appeal, in other words, the whole of the delay must be explained [see, Ramlal v Rewa Coal fields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, 364; Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana, (1960) 1 SCR 875, 889- AIR 1960 SC 260, 265-66; J.B. Advani& Co., Pr. Debi, AIR 1978 SC 537, 542; SaoorajmallNagarmal v. Golden Fibres Products, AIR 1969 Cal 381, 384; Bhaktipada Majhi vs. SDO, AIR 1971 Cal 204]. 2.6 However, while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to pro…

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 166/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 195Section 201(1)Section 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(C)Section 275(1)(c)

…fixed for hearing of the captioned appeals. The facts on record clearly indicate that delay was caused due to negligence, lethargy or inaction on the part of the assessee and therefore not worthy of condonation. 10. In Sitaram Ramcharan vs. Nagarshana (1960) 1 SCR 875 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at page 889 of the Report that it cannot be disputed that in dealing with the question of condoning delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party has to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time and this has always been understood to mean that…

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 165/DEL/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 195Section 201(1)Section 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(C)Section 275(1)(c)

…fixed for hearing of the captioned appeals. The facts on record clearly indicate that delay was caused due to negligence, lethargy or inaction on the part of the assessee and therefore not worthy of condonation. 10. In Sitaram Ramcharan vs. Nagarshana (1960) 1 SCR 875 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at page 889 of the Report that it cannot be disputed that in dealing with the question of condoning delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party has to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time and this has always been understood to mean that…

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 164/DEL/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 195Section 201(1)Section 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(C)Section 275(1)(c)

…fixed for hearing of the captioned appeals. The facts on record clearly indicate that delay was caused due to negligence, lethargy or inaction on the part of the assessee and therefore not worthy of condonation. 10. In Sitaram Ramcharan vs. Nagarshana (1960) 1 SCR 875 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at page 889 of the Report that it cannot be disputed that in dealing with the question of condoning delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party has to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time and this has always been understood to mean that…

CONPLEX TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1951/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…essee company as stated in the application. The facts on record clearly indicate that delay was due to negligence, lethargy or inaction on the part of the assessee company and therefore not worthy of condonation. 9. In Sitaram Ramcharan vs. Nagarshana (1960) 1 SCR 875 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at page 889 of the Report that it cannot be disputed that in dealing with the question of condoning delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party has to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time and this has always been understood to mean that…

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 955/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: S/s. Jitendra Jain, Gopal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…nd must explain the delay made thereafter, day by day, till the actual date of filing of the appeal. In other words, the whole of the delay must be explained see Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd; AIR 1962 SC 361, 364; Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana, (1960) 1 SCR 875, 889 + AIR 1960 SC 260, 265- 66; J.B. Advani & Co. Pro Ltd. v. R.D. Shah, CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC); Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Sudha Rani Debi, AIR 1978 SC 537, 542; Soorajmull Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre & Products, AIR 1969 Ca1.381, 384; Bhaktipada Majhi v. SDO, AIR 1971 Cal.204]. Sufficient cause has to be shown in respect of falling within the 8 M/s…

Sitaram Ramcharan v. Nagarshana (1 SCR 875) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax