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#522 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 366,470 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

M/S. Rmz Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…ITA No.954/Bang/2022 M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited The Millenia Level 1 & 14, No.1 & 2 Murphy Road NFAC Vs. Ulsoor Delhi Bangalore 560 008. PAN NO : AADCR3654H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of Hearing : 08.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023 O R D E R This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dat…

Srisaila Kshetra Yogi Vema Reddy Nithyannadana Satram, Kurnool vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

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

ITA 430/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Srisaila Kshetra Yogi Vema Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Reddy Nityannadana Satram, Tirupati. Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Aadts7734G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gbs Maitreya Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri GBS MaitreyaFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav

Section 10Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5

…antial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay. In this regard, I note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under:"In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the…

Shri Hemendra Lilachand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 500/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.500/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Shri Hemendra Lilachand Shah, Income Tax Officer, 2, Krishna Apartment, Vs. Ward-5(2)(3), Bhuderpura Road, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aelps5265E

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 5

…her the staff’s failure to supply the order of the ld. CIT-A is A.Y. 2013-14 3 reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In this regard we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that : “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under : "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in…

Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-10, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1022/AHD/2018[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 292BSection 69

…ntial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay. In this regard, we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that: “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in th…

Shri. Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 820/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 234DSection 250

…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…

Shri Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 153/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 254

…antial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay. In this regard we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that : “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in t…

Sri. M. Nagaraja, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mysore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1905/BANG/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 263

…stantial justice cannot be pitted against the technicalities. We find that Page 14 of 23 Shri M. Nagaraja, Mysore Hon’ble Madras High court has considered the issue of condonation of delay and expounded as under in Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 357 (Mad.). “No hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and courts 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 and the expres…

Mansi Finance Chennai Limited, Chennai vs. The ACIT, CC 4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 109/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

…dingly, the Hon’ble Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 1275 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. 10. The Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT 280 ITR 357 (Mad) 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 the Court 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 import…

Mansi Finance Chennai Limited, Chennai vs. The ACIT, CC-4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 108/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Prafulchabndra Bhaichandbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD.2(3)(3), Surat

ITA 104/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.104/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prafulchandra Bhaichandbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bharthana (Vesu), Via-Althan, Taluka 2(3)(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Choryasi, Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azcpd7755Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…f prime importance. (VideVedabai alias Vaijaya-natabai Baburao Patil v. Shanta-ram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC.)) 6. A Division Bench of this court in which one of us was a party (P. D. Dinakaran J.) in Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Deputy CIT [2006] 280 ITR 357 has also held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and the courts 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 i…

Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(10), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1002/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1002/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, I.T.O., 7, Rajasthan Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Opp. Meghdoot Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad. Sahibaug, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana Sr. DR

Section 5

…r the confusion between the assessee and the learned counsel of the assessee is reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In this regard we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that : “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 held as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas i…

Gujarat Fisheries Centre Co .Operative Association Limited, Ahmedabda vs. ITO, Wrad-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 232/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-D.R

Section 263Section 271Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…order of the Pr. CIT and not the AO and accordingly, the appeal court was time barred. The counsel for the assessee has also filed an affidavit to the above effect. The counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT 280 ITR 357 (Madras) to contend that there is no hard and fast rule in the matter of condonation of delay and the Courts 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 and…

Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 318/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT, D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 263Section 54

…stantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay. In this regard we note that the ITA nos.318/AHD/2018 Asstt. Years 2012-13 4 Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that : “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under : "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in…

Navi Masjid Mahfile Husen Madrase Tarkki Islam Husaini Tekri, Banaskantha vs. The ACIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 228/AHD/2021[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, Shri

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 5

…antial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay. In this regard we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that : “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under : "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in…

The Government Servants Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 442/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 442/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 The Government Servants Co-Op. Credit I.T.O., Society Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Hindi Bhavan, Vadodara. Sanstha Vasahat Raopura, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aabat5146J

For Appellant: Shri Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr..D.R

Section 5Section 56Section 80P(2)

…ation whether there was genuine cause on the part of the assessee for the delayed filing of appeal in the given facts and circumstances. In this regard we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that : “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under : "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in…

Equipment Fabricators, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the CIT(Appeals), NFAC. Therefore, we have to consider whether the Accountant/Auditor /Counsel’s failure is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 6. 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…

Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 1460/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1460/Jp/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. F-100, Panchsheel Marg, C-Scheme, Ward-6(2), Jaipur-302001. Jaipur. Pan No.: Ahppg 4958 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Appeal Reads As Under: “1. The Assessee Could Not File The Appeal In Time At Cit Level As He Got Sick & Mentally Upset Due To Deep Financial Pressure As He Was Suffering From Financial Hardship & Seeked Condonation Of Delay Of 38 Days In Filing The Appeal But His Appeal Was Dismissed By Cit(A) Without Dealing On The Basis Of Merits Of The Case As Cit Sustained The Arbitrarily Disallowance By Ld. Ao Of Lump Sum Addition Of Rs. 4,00,000/- Out Of Other Expenses Without Any Basis. Also Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law By Arbitrarily Disallowing Lump Sum Amount Of Rs. 4,00,000/- Without Issuing Show Cause Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Violation Of The Principle Of Nature Justice.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 246(2)(b)Section 249(3)Section 5

…&K) 4. Ram Lal & Sons Vs ITO (2006) 099 TTJ 0063 (Asr. Trib). 5. Charki Mica Mining Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 193 (Cal) 6. Athul Kumar S. Mehta Vs ITO 32 TTJ 0255 7. Jayalakshmi Cloth Stores Vs ITO 132 ITR 764 8. Sreenivas Charitable Trust Vs DCIT (2006) 280 ITR 357 (Mad) 4. On the other hand, the ld DR could not rebut the facts submitted by the assessee before us for seeking condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. As regards the sufficiency of cause for filing the appeals belatedl…

Vasantha Bhavan Hotel India P.Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2058/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2036, 2037, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2057 & 2058/Chny/2019

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

…of removing injustice and is expected to do so’’. Further, the Courts have always held that the delay is a matter of which could be condoned in the interest of justice. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust vs. DCIT (2006) 280 ITR 357 had depreciated meticulous approach in construing the meaning of sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. In the light of the above facts and law, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. Therefore we direct the ld. CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue in appeal on merits in accordanc…

Vasantha Bhavan Hotel India P.Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2057/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

Vasantha Bhavan Hotel India P.Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2056/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250