Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 69A, Section 250, Section 144, Section 148, Section 249.

Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil

Q: How many judgments cite Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (125 STC 375), spanning 2019 to 2025.

125 STC 375Supreme Court of India#9346 most cited

What is Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil authority for?

The expression 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing an appeal should be liberally construed, with paramount importance given to advancing substantial justice. However, this principle must be applied judiciously based on the specific facts of each case.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil · 125 STC 375 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · liberal construction · substantial justice · delay in filing appeal · reasonable cause · appeals before tribunal · section 250

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 69A Section 250 Section 144 Section 148 Section 249 Section 10(23C)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

delay in filing appeal condonation of delay reasonable cause section 69a appeal before the tribunal section 142(1)section 144 section 25 nfac section 250 india interest

Judgments citing Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil

Ruby Rajendra P Tiwari, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 192Section 45Section 69ASection 69C

…y, however, the Assessee had failed to produce material evidence in support of the same. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) had referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 125 STC 375 SC wherein it was held that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal construction. However, the said judgment differentiated on facts by the Ld. CIT(A) observing that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case where delay was 7 days whereas in the present case there was extraordinary delay in filing of appeal of 98 days a…

Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Mori, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 405/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy." 4. In VEDABAI ALIAS VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. (SC): 44 ALR 577 (SC) the apex court made a distinction in delay and SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL reported in 253 ITR 798 (SC): 125 STC 375 inordinate delay observing 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 former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be…

Appasab Avadanna Lavate, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bijapur

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

ITA 150/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…t aware about the limitation and hence it has caused delay. The ld. CIT(A) held that assessee failed to furnish evidences of its claim when opportunity is granted. Accordingly delay was not condoned. The ld. CIT(A) also considered the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 125 STC 375 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that the court has to exercise the 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 expression “sufficient cause” should receive liberal construction. The ld. CIT(A) held t…

Sadhana Foundation, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO (Exemption) Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 166/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

…do not find any merit in the case as no sufficient cause has been made out justifying the delay and the first appellate authority has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vedabai alias Vaijaantabai Naburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil 125 STC 375 SC and Basawaraj & Anr vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, order dated 22.08.2013 for dismissing the appeal of the assessee and as no sufficient cause has been made out before us as well, there is no merit in the case and the order of the I.T.A. No.: 166/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sadhana Foundation. Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A) is hereby confi…

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2325/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

…n filing the appeal on the ground that the reason given was too general. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in applying a mechanical and narrow interpretation of the judicial precedents, including Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil (125 STC 375 SC) and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987 SC 1353), cited by the appellant. The CIT(A) incorrectly held that these decisions, which dealt with delays of 7 and 4 days respectively, were not applicable to the present case involving a delay of 202 days. The CIT(A) failed to properly consider the true and correct facts of the appellant…

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2324/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

Bommak Prem Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 927/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: MS. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr AR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…o his notice, treated the grounds raised by the assessee as not genuine and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee duly relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 125 STC 375 (SC). Thus, the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of assessee on technical grounds as well as on the merits of the case in lieu of negligent attitude of the assessee in pursuing his appeal before him. In appeal before the Tribunal, there was a delay of 233 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal. Even before the Tribunal also…

Tata Communications (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 271(1)(b)

…of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Postmaster General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC), Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs v. Ex. Engineer (2008) 17 SCC 488 (SC), Vedabai @ Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 125 STC 375 (SC), Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) SC 1353 and other decisions and was of the view that the explanation of the assessee for sufficient cause in the delay was not supported by affidavit and the assessee failed to establish the same before him. He also noted that the delay in the cases decided by the Supreme Court in Vedabai @…

Tata Communications (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 554/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 271(1)(b)

Arvindkumar Suryanathsinh Verma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), New Ward No. 5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1732/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Goyal, Sr. D.R

Section 5

…the Supreme Court took the view that the court should not adopt an injustice- oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. In Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil reported in 2002 253 ITR 798; 2002 125 STC 375; 2001 44 ALR 577 the apex court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing 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. In Shakuntala Devi…

Sri Panchamal Ganesh Shenoy (HUF), Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2), Mangalore

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

ITA 256/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri R.N.Siddapaji, Addl.CIT

Section 264Section 271(1)Section 274

…. 5 ITA No.3555/De1/2009 Asst. Year 200203(2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC). ITA No.256& 6(B)/2018 4 b) Pundlik Jalam Patil(dead) by LRS vs Executive Engineer, Jalgon Medium Project (2008) 17SCC 448. c) Vedabai alias Vijayantabai Naburoa Patil Vs Shantaram Baburoa Patil 125 STC 375 SC. d) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji 1987 SC 1353. e) Case of SRF Ltd. New Delhi Vs Assess on 14 November, 2014, the ITAT Delhi. 9. For these and other such grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed”. 1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the Order of…