Subhash Malik v. CIT

325 ITR 243High Court2010#11881 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also reported as

83 DTR 10

Sections most often in play

Section 250

Issues it is cited on

reasonable causecondonation of delayopportunity of being heardindia

Judgments citing Subhash Malik v. CIT

Mohit Satsangi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-16(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1362/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Satsangi, Dcit, 24Th Floor, E-2 Block, Circle-16(1), Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Vs. Delhi. Nehru Marg, Delhi-110017. Pan-Awmps2265D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Basant Kumar, Adv. & Ms. Sabhya Saachi Sharma, Ar Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./ Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 22.01.2025 In Appeal No. Addl./Jcit-(A) Mumbai- 10036/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Delayed By 143 Days Before The Ld. Cit(A), For Which Delay Condonation Petition Was Also Filed, Wherein It Was Stated By The Mohit Satsangi Vs. Acit Assessee That He Had Filed Rectification Applications On Two Occasions Before The Ao For Rectification Of The Order, However, Both These Applications Were Dismissed, Therefore, The Assessee Had With No Other Alternate But To File The Appeal Before Cit(A) & In This Process The Same Was Got Delayed By 143 Days. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Find Any Force In The Reasons Given By The Assessee & Not Admitted The Appeal Of The Assessee By Not Condoning The Delay. 3. Before Us, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Delay Is Bonafide & There Was Reasonable Cause As Assessee Was Exploring The Alternate Remedy & Acted In Terms Of Legal Advice Therefore, The Appeal Was Got Delayed. He Also Placed Reliance On The Following Judgments: -Subhash Malik Vs. Cit 325 Itr 243 (All) -Sps Educational & Welfare Society Versus Dcit-Dpc [2022 (9) Tmi 87-

Section 250

…bmits that the delay is bonafide and there was reasonable cause as assessee was exploring the alternate remedy and acted in terms of legal advice therefore, the appeal was got delayed. He also placed reliance on the following judgments: -Subhash Malik vs. CIT 325 ITR 243 (ALL) -SPS Educational and Welfare Society Versus DCIT-DPC [2022 (9) TMI 87- ITAT DELHI) -Dilip Kantilal Kapadia Versus ITO-17 (1) (4), Mumbai [2021 (7) TMI 62-ITAT Mumbai) -R.A.K. Ceramics, UAE v. DCIT [2019 (4) TMI 667 – ITAT Hyderabada]’ -Indira Educational and Charitable Trust, (5) TMI 594-ITAT Chennai]’ -More Mover Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2…

Sangamner Vipassana Samiti, Sangamner vs. CIT(E), Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1573/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…imilar facts : i. Abdul Rahiman Vs. ITO (2024) 3 NYPCTR 1359 (Kar)(HC) dated 03.09.2024; ii. Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom)(HC); iii. CIT Vs. Indian Gospel Fellowship Trust (2011) 331 ITR 283 (Mad)(HC); iv. Subhash Malik Vs. CIT (2010) 325 ITR 243 (All)(HC); v. Faisal Hameed Vs. ITAT, 83 DTR 10 (J&K); vi. Sameer Ashok Joshi Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 572/PUN/2018, dated 18.01.2022; vii. OAOAM Muthiah Chettiar Vs. CIT, 19 ITR 402 (Mad); viii. Laxmi Traders Vs. CIT, 168 ITR 253 (Orissa); ix. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC); x. Labricare Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT & Ors.…

Sangamner Vipassana Samiti, Sangamner vs. CIT(E), Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1572/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…imilar facts : i. Abdul Rahiman Vs. ITO (2024) 3 NYPCTR 1359 (Kar)(HC) dated 03.09.2024; ii. Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom)(HC); iii. CIT Vs. Indian Gospel Fellowship Trust (2011) 331 ITR 283 (Mad)(HC); iv. Subhash Malik Vs. CIT (2010) 325 ITR 243 (All)(HC); v. Faisal Hameed Vs. ITAT, 83 DTR 10 (J&K); vi. Sameer Ashok Joshi Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 572/PUN/2018, dated 18.01.2022; vii. OAOAM Muthiah Chettiar Vs. CIT, 19 ITR 402 (Mad); viii. Laxmi Traders Vs. CIT, 168 ITR 253 (Orissa); ix. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC); x. Labricare Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT & Ors.…

Sps Educational and Welfare Society, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, CPC, Banglore

In the result the grounds are allowed and appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2677/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasps Educational & Welfare Vs. Dcit-Cpc, Society, 206-207, Ansal Bangalore Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqts2096E

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 253(5)

…ion with the direction deemed fit to CIT(A) to hear matter on merits.” 5. Heard and perused the record. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the judgments/ orders of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Subhash Malik Vs. CIT, Meerut (2010) 325 ITR 243, M/s. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd Vs. DCIT, Bangalore in ITA No. 1111/bang/2019 to contend that the ld. CIT(A) has been harsh to apply the stringent provision without taking into consideration the merit of the ground. Ld DR however submitted that there is no error in findings of Ld CIT(A). 6. Appreciating the matter on record and the sub…

Sameer Ashok Joshi, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

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

ITA 572/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.572/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sameer Ashok Joshi, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Raghukul Building, Nashik. Pimpalgaon (B), Tal. Niphad, Dist.- Nashik – 422209. Pan : Acxpj6376R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue By : Shri M. J. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. There Is Delay Of 445 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Delay Had Occurred On Account Of Wrong Advice Given By Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M. J. Jasnani
Section 10Section 154

…reliance on the following decisions in support of the proposition where the delay had occurred on account of wrong advice given by the Counsel, constitutes sufficient reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal :- (i) Faisal Hameed vs. ITAT, 83 DTR 10 (J&K). (ii) Madura Coats Ltd. vs. CCE, 119 CTR 63 (SC). (iii) L. Sohanraj & Ors. vs. DCIT, 260 ITR 155 (Kar.). (iv) O.A.O.A.M. Muthiah Chettiar vs. CIT, 19 ITR 402 (Mad.). (v) Venkatadri Traders Ltd. vs. CIT, 248 ITR 681 (Mad.) 3. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR opposed the condonation of delay. 3 4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the av…

Aara Agro Pvt. Ltd., Agra vs. Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 207Section 234BSection 234C

…'appellant' had placed reliance on various decisions for condonation 9. of delay before CIT(A) NFAC but the same were not discussed much less distinguished. 'NFAC' has only discussed the Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Subhash Malik vs CIT [2010] 325 ITR 243 (All) (Page No.60 to 65) and has distinguished it too on flimsy ground,placing reliance on hyper technical consideration mentioned in Para 7.1 of the impugned order (Page No.8 of appeal memo) as under: The facts of the case are not the same as per facts of the present case being the said case, the counsel has advised to take up the matter before…

Smt.Nimmi K. Chhabria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-47, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1237/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Dcit-Cc-8(4), Smt. Nimmi K. Chhabria, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, The Designers, B-802, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Surya Apartments, B.D. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aaapc6121G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Smt. Nimmi K. Chhabria, The Dcit-Central Circle 47 The Designers, B-802, Aayakar Bhavan, Surya Apartments, B.D. Road, Mumbai Mumbai - 400026 Vs. Pan: Aaapc6121G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 50Section 50C

…r condonation of delay may be allowed and the delay may be Assessment Year: 2008-09 condoned in the interest of justice. To substantiate its claim the Ld. counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Subhash Malik vs. CIT 325 ITR 243 (Allahabad) and submitted that in the said case it has been held that appeal filed immediately after rejection of rectification application is sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the delay is inordinate and the assess…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Nimmi K. Chabria, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1830/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Dcit-Cc-8(4), Smt. Nimmi K. Chhabria, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, The Designers, B-802, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Surya Apartments, B.D. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aaapc6121G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Smt. Nimmi K. Chhabria, The Dcit-Central Circle 47 The Designers, B-802, Aayakar Bhavan, Surya Apartments, B.D. Road, Mumbai Mumbai - 400026 Vs. Pan: Aaapc6121G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 50Section 50C

…r condonation of delay may be allowed and the delay may be Assessment Year: 2008-09 condoned in the interest of justice. To substantiate its claim the Ld. counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Subhash Malik vs. CIT 325 ITR 243 (Allahabad) and submitted that in the said case it has been held that appeal filed immediately after rejection of rectification application is sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the delay is inordinate and the assess…

Sangeeta Jagdish Keny, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2097/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(iv)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50CSection 54

…the learned representative has relied on the following judgments in support of appellant’s prayer for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal :- i) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC); and, ii) Subhash Malik vs. CIT, 325 ITR 243 (All) 8 Mrs. Sangeeta Jagdish Keny 7. On this aspect, the ld. DR has opposed the plea for condonation of delay by referring to the period of delay and the fact that assessee was negligent in not engaging a proper professional person. 8. I have carefully considered the reasons advanced by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay in moving…