Union of India v. Popular Construction Company

Tirumala Rao Battu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

…the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the reason leading to the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is devoid and bereft of any substance. I further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470, had observed that limitation provisions are based on sound public policy — to ensure certainty, finality, and avoidance of stale claims. In the instant case, as the assessee has failed to come forth with any plausible explanation leading to the inordinate delay of 474 days involved in filing the present appeal, therefore, I am constrained to dismi…

Audrey Bernice Roy, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

…ing the reason leading to the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) does not inspire any confidence and is devoid and bereft of any substance. I further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470, has observed that limitation provisions are based on sound public policy — to ensure certainty, finality, and avoidance of stale claims. In the instant case, as the assessee has failed to come forth with any plausible explanation leading to the inordinate delay of 1503 days involved in the appeal filed before the CIT(A), therefore, as the said del…

Kunkulagunta Mallikarjuna Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

…) does not inspire any confidence and is totally devoid and bereft of any substance. Rather, it appears to be an afterthought to justify the prolonged inaction. I further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470, has observed that limitation provisions are based on sound public policy — to ensure certainty, finality, and avoidance of stale claims. In the instant case, the assessee has failed to come forth with any plausible explanation Page. No 9 I.T.A.No.579/VIZ/2025 Kunkulagunta Mallikarjuna Rao leading to the delay involved in filing the appeal before…

Boda Ramasatyanarayana, Draksharamam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kakinada

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

…arding the reason leading to the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) does not inspire any confidence and is totally devoid and bereft of any substance. I further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470, has observed that limitation provisions are based on sound public policy — to ensure certainty, finality, and avoidance of stale claims. In the instant case, the assessee has failed to come forth with any plausible explanation leading to the delay involved in filing the present appeal, therefore, considering the fact that the delay involved in the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Shimla vs. Ms Solan District Truck Operators Transport Cooperative Society Ltd Darlaghat Through Its President

Bench: This Court. 2. On 29Th March 2019, The State Of Hp Filed The Objections Under Section 34 Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (After Now Called ‘The Arbitration Act’) Against The Award Of Ld. Arbitrator Announced On 8Th December 2018. Since The Period Of Three Months Expired On 9Th March, Hence The Objections Accompanied An Application Under Section 34 Of The Arbitration Act To Condone The Delay On The Grounds That The Objections Were Filed Within Permissible 30 Days After The Expiry Of The Statutory Period Of Three Months. 1Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment?

…icant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter." 11. In Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, holds, [11]. Thus, where the legislature prescribed a special limitation for the purpose of the appeal and the period of limitation of 60 days was to be computed after taking the aid of Secti…