How many judgments cite Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT?

182 judgments on BharatTax cite Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT (280 ITR 357), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 249(3), Section 144, Section 143(1).

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT

280 ITR 357High Court2006#518 most cited

What is Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT authority for?

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

182

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

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v Dy CIT · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · liberal interpretation · substantial justice · Section 249(3) · delay in filing appeal · Madras High Court · income tax appeal delay condonation · reasonable cause for delay

Also reported as

154 Taxmann 377

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 249(3)Section 144 Section 143(1)Section 154 Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 51 section 80ib section 249(2)section 249(3)section 139(4)delay in filing appeal section 249 reasonable cause condonation of delay section 274 section 24

Judgments citing Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 506/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 154

…take steps to file this appeal before the ITAT. Therefore, we have to consider whether the Counsel’s failure is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Madras High Court considered an identical issue in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT (280 ITR 357) and held that mixing up of papers with other papers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The Madras High Court further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoni…

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

…f each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause", the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. 14.1 The Hon’ble HC in this case referred to its own judgement in Sreenivas Charitable Trust v DCIT [2006] 280 ITR 357 where it was held that there was no hard and fast rule that can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and that the court should exercise the discretion on the facts of each case, keeping in mind that in construing the expression “sufficient cause” the principle of advancing substantial…

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

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

SALIGRAMA RAJENDRA PRASAD RASHMI,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2414/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

…IR 1998, wherein it was held that the length of the delay is not material, but the acceptability of the explanation is the true test. Further, in the cases of Shakti Clearing Agency (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 80 TTJ 668 (Rajkot) and Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT, 280 ITR 357 (Hon’ble Madras), the Courts have consistently held that a liberal approach should be adopted in considering applications for condonation of delay when no mala fide or deliberate negligence is attributable to the assessee. 6.1 In the facts before us, we find that the delay is primarily attributable to circumstances beyond the control and bona fi…

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

ITA 827/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

…IR 1998, wherein it was held that the length of the delay is not material, but the acceptability of the explanation is the true test. Further, in the cases of Shakti Clearing Agency (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 80 TTJ 668 (Rajkot) and Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT, 280 ITR 357 (Madras), the Courts have consistently held that a liberal approach should be adopted in considering applications for condonation of delay when no mala fide or deliberate negligence is attributable to the assessee. 5. In the facts before us, we find that the delay is primarily attributable to lapses of the tax consultant, which constitute a reas…

LATA PRAKASH MARADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1945/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Prakash Maradia Ito Ward – 42(1)(2) Flat No. 105, 1St Floor, Building N.2A, Kautilya Bhavan, Rna N.G Sunity Phase I Chs Ltd, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Apppm 9292 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Jigar Mehta

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…on of delay may itself constitute a ground to condone condonation of delay may itself constitute a ground to condone delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court in delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT [2006] 280 ITR 357 (SC) has further held that the expression [2006] 280 ITR 357 (SC) has further held that the expression [2006] 280 ITR 357 (SC) has further held that the expression “sufficient sufficient sufficient cause” must cause” cause” must must be be be liberally construed to liberally liberally construed construed to to advance advance advance substantial…

LUDLOW JUTE COMPANY LIMITED PROVIDENT FUND,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 2434/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(25)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 2434/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ludlow Jute Company Limited A.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru Provident Fund Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAATL3008K Appearances: Assessee represented by : Siddharth Parakh, AR. Department represented by : Kapil Mandal, Addl. CIT (DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 16-June-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 25-August-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the orde…

SAMPAT MAL PARAKH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2238/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…ded and\nimmediately forwarded to the consultant for filing of the appeal before\nthe Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.\n4.0 In this context, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble\nMadras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust -vs.-\nDCIT (2006) 280 ITR 357 (Mad). The brief facts of the case are that\naggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee preferred an\nappeal before the Appellate Tribunal with a petition to condone the\ndelay of 38 days in filing the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal\ndismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. On an appeal by the\nassessee, the Hon'ble High Court refe…

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

…e for condonation of the delay. The Coordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. (supra), accordingly, condoned the more than 180 days. The Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v Dy. CIT [2006] 154 Taxman 377/280 ITR 357 held that in order to advance substantial justice which is of prime importance, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal interpretation. 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, thus it would be a g…

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)

…e delay. The Coordinate bench Rahul Ramesh Ektare 8 of Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. (supra), accordingly, condoned the more than 180 days. The Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v Dy. CIT [2006] 154 Taxman 377/280 ITR 357 held that in order to advance substantial justice which is of prime importance, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal interpretation. 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, thus it would be a g…

TRIDENT MARBLES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2625/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-20 Trident Marbles Pvt Ltd Asst. Commissioner Of Income Near Laxmi Narayan Temple Airport Tax, Central Circle-2(3) Side Service Road, Sahar P & T Vs. Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Colony, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Mumbai- 400099 Annexe, M.K.Road, Mumbai, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aaact 4634 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 37(1)

…or condonation. Similarly, in Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [AIR 2002 SC 1201], it was held that a pedantic approach in refusing to condone delay may result in miscarriage of justice. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT [(2006) 280 ITR 357 (Mad)] has also held that the term "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal and purposive construction in order to advance the cause of substantial justice. Further, in Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Sudha Rani Debi [AIR 1978 SC 537], the Hon’ble Apex Court observed 6 Trident Marbles Pvt Ltd. that failure of the opposing party to rebut the averments in…

MUSIC BROADCAST LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2212/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 154

…ssee is held to be bonafide with “sufficient cause”, the delay though excessive, does not assume much importance. 5 ITA No.2212/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 Music Broadcast Limited 4.2 Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust reported in 280 ITR 357 held that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hon’ble C…

HITESH SURESH JADHAV,KALHER, THANE vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), KALYAN, KALYAN

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

ITA 771/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

SULOCHANA SURESH MANKUMARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 810/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 142(1)Section 148

…have to consider whether the Counsel’s failure is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Madras High Court considered an identical 5 ITA 810/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2013-14 Sulochana Suresh Mankumare issue in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT (280 ITR 357) and held that mixing up of papers with other papers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The Madras High Court further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoni…

VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

ITA 443/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

…take steps to file this appeal before the ITAT. Therefore, we have to consider whether the Counsel's failure is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Madras High Court considered an identical issue in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT (280 ITR 357) and held that mixing up of papers with other papers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The Madras High Court further observed that the expression…

INDIA LAND AND PROPERTIES LIMITED (SINCE MERGED WITH EQUINOX INDIA DEVELOPMENTS LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIA BULLS REAL ESTATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 426/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 226

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

ITA 44/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 249(2)Section 271FSection 69

…steps to file this appeal before\nthe ITAT. Therefore, we have to consider whether the\nCounsel's failure is sufficient cause for condoning the\ndelay. The Madras High Court considered an identical\nissue in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT\n(280 ITR 357) and held that mixing up of papers with other\npapers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.\nThe Madras High Court further observed that the\nexpression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to\nadvance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of\nsubstantial justice is the prime factor while considering the\nreasons for c…

INFRASRUCTURE SERVICES ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 33(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 6625/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…steps to file this appeal before\nthe ITAT. Therefore, we have to consider whether the\nCounsel's failure is sufficient cause for condoning the\ndelay. The Madras High Court considered an identical\nissue in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT\n(280 ITR 357) and held that, mixing up of papers with other\npapers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.\nThe Madras High Court further observed that the\nexpression \"sufficient cause\" should be interpreted to\nadvance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of\nsubstantial justice is the prime factor while considering the\nreasons fo…

PREVISION PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(2)(4), MUMUBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 5799/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 147Section 69ASection 69C

…steps to file this appeal before\nthe ITAT. Therefore, we have to consider whether the\nCounsel's failure is sufficient cause for condoning the\ndelay. The Madras High Court considered an identical\nissue in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT\n(280 ITR 357) and held that mixing up of papers with other\npapers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.\nThe Madras High Court further observed that the\nexpression \"sufficient cause\" should be interpreted to\nadvance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of\nsubstantial justice is the prime factor while considering the\nreasons for…

MINAKSHI SINGH,MEERUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6648/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 6648/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12

…take steps to file this appeal before the ITAT. Therefore, we have to consider whether the Counsel’s failure is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Madras High Court considered an identical issue in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT (280 ITR 357) and held that mixing up of papers with other papers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The Madras High Court further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of 4 ITA no.6648/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2011-12 Minakshi Singh substantial justice is the pr…

Showing 1–20 of 182 · Page 1 of 10

...