Vedabhai v. Santaram

253 ITR 798Supreme Court of India2002#316 most cited

What is Vedabhai v. Santaram authority for?

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

262

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vedabhai v. Santaram · 253 ITR 798 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · substantial justice · technical consideration · limitation act · section 5 Limitation Act · liberal construction

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80GSection 147Section 12ABSection 144Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

condonation of delayreasonable causesection 80gsection 12opportunity of being heardsection 27section 271section 25interestsection 142(1)prescribedindia

Judgments citing Vedabhai v. Santaram

ITO WD 2(5), Kalyan vs. Hasmukharai & Co., Ambernath

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 192/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

…he life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798 observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no malafide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- “3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting sect…

Kamlesh Steel, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 20(1), Mumbai

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5486/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

…he life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798 observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no malafide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- “3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting sect…

Ram Bharose Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

…ay in filing the appeal cannot be so liberally construed particularly in view of the fact that where the delay is of a substantial period. 4.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patti Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, (2002) 253 ITR 798 has held that though in exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the time prescribed, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of fe…

Pravin Dolas, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1083/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Pravin Dolas, Income Tax Officer, Bldg. No.T/28, 2Nd Floor, Ward-15(1)(3), बनाम/ Room No.202,Pratikshanagar, Mumbai Vs. Sion Koliwada, Mumbai-400022 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aicpd6505H "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri V. Justin-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/05/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/05/2018 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh () The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Impugned Order Dated 16/03/2015 Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, In 2 Pravin Dolas Not Condoning The Delay Of 437 Days In Filing The Appeal Before

Section 144Section 51

…the life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798 observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no malafide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- 5 Pravin Dolas “3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay…

Assistant Engineer (O&M) Avvnl, Shrimadhopur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 409/JPR/2018[2016-17 (24Q, 2ND QTR.)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salgia (CA)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234E

…2000 SC 2006 as well as in the case of Poonja Arcade vs. Asstt. CIT, 326 ITR 123 of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 253 ITR 798 (SC). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the delay in filing the appeals may be condoned and the appeals may be disposed off on merits. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee is habitual in filing the appeal belatedly. The ld. CIT (A) vide impugned order has dismissed the appeals of the assessee as time barred, ther…

Assistant Engineer (O&M) Avvnl, Shrimadhopur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 405/JPR/2018[2016-17 24Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salgia (CA)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234E

…2000 SC 2006 as well as in the case of Poonja Arcade vs. Asstt. CIT, 326 ITR 123 of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 253 ITR 798 (SC). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the delay in filing the appeals may be condoned and the appeals may be disposed off on merits. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee is habitual in filing the appeal belatedly. The ld. CIT (A) vide impugned order has dismissed the appeals of the assessee as time barred, ther…

Assistant Engineer, Avvnl, Shrimadhopur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 361/JPR/2018[2014-15 (24 - Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salgia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200A(1)Section 234E

…2000 SC 2006 as well as in the case of Poonja Arcade vs. Asstt. CIT, 326 ITR 123 of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 253 ITR 798 (SC). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the delay in filing the appeals may be condoned and the appeals may be disposed off on merits. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee is habitual in filing the appeal belatedly. The ld. CIT (A) vide impugned order has dismissed the appeals of the assessee as time barred, the…

Assistant Engineer, Avvnl, Shrimadhopur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 359/JPR/2018[2013-14-24Q-2]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salgia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200A(1)Section 234E

…2000 SC 2006 as well as in the case of Poonja Arcade vs. Asstt. CIT, 326 ITR 123 of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 253 ITR 798 (SC). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the delay in filing the appeals may be condoned and the appeals may be disposed off on merits. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee is habitual in filing the appeal belatedly. The ld. CIT (A) vide impugned order has dismissed the appeals of the assessee as time barred, the…

Assistant Engineer, Avvnl, Shrimadhopur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 360/JPR/2018[2013-14 (24q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salgia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200A(1)Section 234E

…2000 SC 2006 as well as in the case of Poonja Arcade vs. Asstt. CIT, 326 ITR 123 of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 253 ITR 798 (SC). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the delay in filing the appeals may be condoned and the appeals may be disposed off on merits. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee is habitual in filing the appeal belatedly. The ld. CIT (A) vide impugned order has dismissed the appeals of the assessee as time barred, the…

Nandkishore Steel Industries P.Ltd, Nagpur vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 3423/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 Nandkishore Steel Dcit-7(1), Industries Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ Gupta House, 6Th Floor, Plot Vs. No.1, Rabindranath Tagore Marg, Civil Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcn8901D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Komal Keswani Shri V. Justin-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 21/05/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2018 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…g the life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798 observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no malafide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- “3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section…

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1360/MUM/2016[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

Section 244ASection 51

…the life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798 observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no malafide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- “3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting sec…

Heft Engineers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(1)(5) Now Assessed With CIT(A)-28, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6617/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Heft Engineers, Income Tax Officer-17(1)(5), C/O- Hemant & Company 02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Cas Off No. No.431, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Business-Wing, Orchid Mumbai-400020 Road Mall Building, Royal Palms Estate, Aarey Colony, Goregaon, East, Mumbai-400065 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafh0802K

Section 51

…g the life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798 observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no malafide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- “3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting sec…

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai

ITA 5073/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai-CIT-DR
Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 80H

…ters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the others courts in the hierarchy.” 11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai Alia Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 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. The court held ITA no.5073/Mum./2017 Reliance Industries Limited that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive liberal co…

Konkan Railway Corporaiton, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3315/MUM/2016[20011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 51

…he life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798(SC) observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no mala- fide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- 5 M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. ITA NO.3312, 3313, 3314 & 3315/…

Konkan Railway Corporaiton, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3314/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 51

…he life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798(SC) observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no mala- fide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- 5 M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. ITA NO.3312, 3313, 3314 & 3315/…

Konkan Railway Corporaiton, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3313/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 51

…he life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798(SC) observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no mala- fide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- 5 M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. ITA NO.3312, 3313, 3314 & 3315/…

Konkan Railway Corporaiton, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3312/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 51

…he life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798(SC) observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no mala- fide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- 5 M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. ITA NO.3312, 3313, 3314 & 3315/…

Nova Intergrated Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Nova Integrated Systems Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 1(3)(2), 1St Floor, Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan Modi Street, Fort M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aacch0670G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 5Section 51

…on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 5 M/s. Nova Integrated Systems Ltd., 7. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai Alia Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 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. The court held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive liberal construction. 8. Following the judicial pronouncement…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -3, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed,

ITA 3465/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rallis India Ltd. Cit -3, Mumbai बनाम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit -3(3)(1), Mumbai M/S Rallis India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Mumbai – 400 020. Point, Mumbai – 400 021. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N

Section 28

…ers instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the others courts in the hierarchy.” 5.2 Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai Alia Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC) 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. The court held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive liberal construction. 16 M/s Rallis India Ltd. ITA…

Can Properties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4797/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Can Properties Pvt. Ito-9(2)(1), Ltd., Shop No. 13, Lumbini Mumbai-400020 बनाम/ Palace Chs Ltd., 91, Tejpal Vs. Road, Ville Parle East, Mumbai – 400 057 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aadcc 7832 L

Section 23(1)(c)Section 51

…g the life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798 observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no malafide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- “3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section…