Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors.

9 SCC 106Reported decision2001#9916 most cited

What is Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. authority for?

The length of the delay in filing an appeal is immaterial; the acceptability of the explanation for the delay is the sole criterion for condonation.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil · 2001 9 SCC 106 · delay in filing appeal · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · substantial justice · acceptability of explanation · length of delay immaterial

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 249(3)section 271aac(1)share capital and share premiumsection 271aacsection 271aasection 271asection 249addition under section 68section 270delay in filing appeal

Judgments citing Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors.

Shreya Dey Sarkar, Pune, Maharashtra vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj, West Dinajpur

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

ITA 1649/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

…has been stated that expression 'sufficient cause' should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. ITA No.: 1649/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shreya Dey Sarkar. 7. FOR THAT further, in the case of Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [(2001) 9 SCC 106], the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the length of the delay is immaterial; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. 8. FOR THAT in similar circumstances, various High Courts and the ITAT have held that where the assessee committed an unintentional error, and documentary evidence supported the correct income, the appeal must be a…

August Jewellery Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1457/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1419, 1420, 1457/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 M/s. August Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mellora, Mezzamine Floor, RBD Icon Building, Next to ACM Ballet, Doddanekundi Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 037, Karnataka. PAN: AANCA 2129 G Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Miraj Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025 ORDER Per Laxm…

August Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1420/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1419, 1420, 1457/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 M/s. August Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mellora, Mezzamine Floor, RBD Icon Building, Next to ACM Ballet, Doddanekundi Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 037, Karnataka. PAN: AANCA 2129 G Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Miraj Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025 ORDER Per Laxm…

August Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1419/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1419, 1420, 1457/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 M/s. August Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mellora, Mezzamine Floor, RBD Icon Building, Next to ACM Ballet, Doddanekundi Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 037, Karnataka. PAN: AANCA 2129 G APPELLANT Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Miraj Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025 ORDER Per Lax…

M/S. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7042/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Neel Kanth Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)Section 80I

…R 1964 SC 215; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556; Katari Suryanarayana v. Koppisetti Subba Rao (2009) 11 SCC 183; Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 183; Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106; and B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693. These aforesaid decisions, including Collector, Land Acquisition v/s Mst. Katiji (supra) on which the assessee has placed reliance, were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs Management Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 6…

Mahesh Pandurng Naik, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Thane

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 253/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahesh Pandurang Naik Acit, Circle- 4, Thane Flat No. 301, B-Wing, 3Rd 6Th, Floor, Ashar I.T. Vs. Floor, Festival Complex, Park, Road 16Z Wagle Achole Road, Nallasopara Indl. Estate, Thane- (E) Thane. 400604. Pan No. Adqpn4963L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jha & Mr. Prayag Jha, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek Jha & Mr. Prayag Jha, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)

…liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. [1987] 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2001] 9 SCC 106.” 4.3 Further in H. Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited V. Nahar Exports Limited, reported in 2015 1 SCC 680, the Hon'ble Mahesh Pandurnag 7 Supreme Court, after considering its decision in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 at paragraph No.23, held as follows: “23. We may also usefully refer…

Shri K Mehfuz Ali Khan, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 923/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ed the delay of 554 days in filing the appeal having convinced with the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal. 7. He further placed reliance upon the other judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 106 in which the Apex Court has condoned the delay of substantial days. 8. In the case of Madhu Kumar Varma, the learned Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that the assessee was never served with the copy of the assessment order. After the assessment order was passed, he was served recovery notice by the TRO, Central Circle, Bengaluru…

Shri K Mehfuz Ali Khan, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 922/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ed the delay of 554 days in filing the appeal having convinced with the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal. 7. He further placed reliance upon the other judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 106 in which the Apex Court has condoned the delay of substantial days. 8. In the case of Madhu Kumar Varma, the learned Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that the assessee was never served with the copy of the assessment order. After the assessment order was passed, he was served recovery notice by the TRO, Central Circle, Bengaluru…

Shri K.Mehfuz Ali Khan, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 921/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ed the delay of 554 days in filing the appeal having convinced with the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal. 7. He further placed reliance upon the other judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 106 in which the Apex Court has condoned the delay of substantial days. 8. In the case of Madhu Kumar Varma, the learned Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that the assessee was never served with the copy of the assessment order. After the assessment order was passed, he was served recovery notice by the TRO, Central Circle, Bengaluru…

Shri K Mehfuz Ali Khan, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 920/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ed the delay of 554 days in filing the appeal having convinced with the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal. 7. He further placed reliance upon the other judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 106 in which the Apex Court has condoned the delay of substantial days. 8. In the case of Madhu Kumar Varma, the learned Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that the assessee was never served with the copy of the assessment order. After the assessment order was passed, he was served recovery notice by the TRO, Central Circle, Bengaluru…

Shri K.Mehfuz Ali Khan, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 919/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ed the delay of 554 days in filing the appeal having convinced with the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal. 7. He further placed reliance upon the other judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 106 in which the Apex Court has condoned the delay of substantial days. 8. In the case of Madhu Kumar Varma, the learned Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that the assessee was never served with the copy of the assessment order. After the assessment order was passed, he was served recovery notice by the TRO, Central Circle, Bengaluru…

Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. (9 SCC 106) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax