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 366,470 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

Addl CIT RG 1(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

ITA 113/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…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…

Addl CIT RG 15(1), Mumbai vs. Bhumiraj Constructions, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8803/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit(Osd), M/S Bhumiraj Constructions Circle-15(1), D/5-6, Big Splash, बनाम/ Room No.104, Matru Mandir, Sector-17, Vs. 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai-400007 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaffb3546H Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Bhumiraj Constructions Jcit(Osd), D/5-6, Big Splash, Circle-15(1), बनाम/ Sector-17, Room No.104, Matru Mandir, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400703 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaffb3546H

Section 221(1)Section 80I

…l justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The 22 ITA Nos 8803, 8750-2011, ITA No 1445-2012 & CO-60-2013 M/s Bhumiraj Construction 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…

Naleshwar Builder & Developers, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 4, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose only for fresh adjudication

ITA 2106/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Naleshwar Builders & Acit, Circle-4, बनाम/ Developers, Flat No. 301, Aaykar Bhawan, B-Wing, 3Rd Floor, Festival M.K. Marg, Vs. Complex, Achole Road, New Marine Lines, Nallasopara East Mumbai. Dist. Thane – 401 209 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Adqpn 4963 L याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Neil Philiph - Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By None

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…

Smt. Narasingan Kumari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2206/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2206/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. Smt. Narasingan Kumari, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No.38,New Income Tax, Thandavaraya Street, Non Corporate Circle -5, Old Washermanpet, Chennai Chennai 600 021

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Supriyo Pal, JCIT

…chnicality. Per Contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 5. assessee unable to show proper reason for delay. Relying on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vijayanthabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantharam Baburao Patil and others 253 ITR 798. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that inordinate delay in filing the appeal cannot be accepted. We heard considered the rival contentions and perused the 6. orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, there was a delay of 204 days delay in filing the appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Assessee had mentioned that…

Uttam Value Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 41, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only for fresh adjudication

ITA 3206/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…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…

Purolator India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1085/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. & Smt. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2002-03 Purolator India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 14(1) (Now Known As Mahle Systems (India) Ltd. New Delhi 1, Aurobindo Marg New Delhi

For Appellant: - Shri Raman Kant Garg, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: - Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. and Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv
Section 147Section 253

…tentional and the explanation furnished by the assessee is reasonable and bonafide and that the delay should be condoned. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai Alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 253 ITR 798 and judgement in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, reported in 167 ITR 471. 3. Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Raman Kant Garg strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay and submitted that this is a case of clear negligence on the part of the assessee. He submitted that reason given does not demonstrate bonafide cause for…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51

…rs instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the others courts in the hierarchy.” 2.4. 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. 2.5. So far as, the decisions cit…

Arya Investment and Construction Co., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 669/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2006-07 M/S Arya Investment & Income Tax Officer, Construction Company, Ward-14(1)(4), बनाम/ C/O- Mangaldas D. Shah & Earnest House, Vs. Co., 506, Lotus House, 33-A Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aalfa2919F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

…ers instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the others courts in the hierarchy.” 2.2. 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. Having made the aforesaid observation a…

Kshama Vipul Choksi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Kshama Vipul Choksi Acit-21(1), C/O- Mangaldas D. Shah & C-10, Room No.600, बनाम/ Co., 506, Lotus House, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 5Th Floor, Bandra (East), New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Actpc4351K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 51

…ers instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the others courts in the hierarchy.” 2.2. 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. Having made the aforesaid observation a…

Administrator of the Estate of Late Mr. E.F Dinshaw, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7542/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Administrator Of The Estate Ito(International Of Late Mr. E.F. Dinshaw, Taxation)-1(1), बनाम/ 412, Churchgate Chambers, Scindia House, Vs. Sir V.T. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No.Aaepd8394A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 51

…ers instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the others courts in the hierarchy.” 2.3. 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. 5 Administrator of the Estate of Late…

Finaventure Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

Accordingly reject this petition for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2009-10. Consequently, the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 is not admitted for adjudication on merits and is dismissed in limine

ITA 1774/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Finaventure Capital Ltd. Dcit, Circle 3(1) (Formerly M/S. Aasda Life Care Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Unit No. 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre Vs. M K Road D.S. Phalke Road, Dadar (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400014 Pan - Aaaca4581B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukundraj M. Chate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member M/s. Finaventure Capital Ltd. DCIT, Circle 3(1) (formerly M/s. Aasda Life Care Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Unit No. 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre Vs. M K Road D.S. Phalke Road, Dadar (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400014 PAN - AAACA4581B Appellant Respondent Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Mukundraj M. Chate Date of Hearing: 01.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 02.03.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 5,…

Shree Saidatta Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 2379/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

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 sectio…

Alkesh Narendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7061/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Akilesh Narendra Mehta Ito, 403, C-Wing, Prem Smurti, Ward-1(1), बनाम/ 6Th Road, Rajawadi, Kalyan Vs. Ghatkopar, East, Mumbai-400077 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aaepm1012E

Section 51Section 68

…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…

Nikunj Barrot, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4887/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Nikunj Barot (Prop. Ito-20(2)(3), Enigma), B-65, Ch6, Mumbai बनाम/ Stanfort Plaza, Veera Indl. Vs. Estate, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400053 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Alppb6397P

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…

Himgiri Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2320/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10 Himgiri Co-Op. Hosuing Ito-19(1)(5), Society Ltd. Room No.215, 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ 755/6, Peddar Road, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aaaah0860N

Section 271(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 sectio…

Sri Anupam Biswas, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2198/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, JCIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 148Section 3Section 89

…y day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner. In the case of Vedabai Alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil & others 253 ITR 798(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of codonation of delay substantial justice is of prime importance. Similar were the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishanan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy 1998 (7) SCC 123 (SC) and Shankararo Vs. Chandrasenkunwar (1987) suppl.SCC 338 (SC). 6. I find that the issue whether deduction u/s…

Arun Nayyar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4970/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(c)

…e appeal could be filed on or I.T.A .No.-4965 to 4970/Del/2014 before 09.11.2014. Accordingly prayer was made that the delay may kindly be condoned relying upon the following decisions:- (i) Vedabai Alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 [SC]; (ii) Collector, Land Acquisiton vs. Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471 [SC]; (iii) Shankarrao vs. Chandrasenkunwar [1987] Suppl. SCC 338 [SC]; (iv) New India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs SMt. Shanti Misra AIR 1976 SC 237 [SC]; (v) O.P.Kathpalia vs Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744 [SC]; (vi) Bharat Singh v. Narendera Kumar [2004] (13) SCC 691; (vii) Dinesh Nagin…

Arun Nayyar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4965/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(c)

…e appeal could be filed on or I.T.A .No.-4965 to 4970/Del/2014 before 09.11.2014. Accordingly prayer was made that the delay may kindly be condoned relying upon the following decisions:- (i) Vedabai Alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 [SC]; (ii) Collector, Land Acquisiton vs. Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471 [SC]; (iii) Shankarrao vs. Chandrasenkunwar [1987] Suppl. SCC 338 [SC]; (iv) New India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs SMt. Shanti Misra AIR 1976 SC 237 [SC]; (v) O.P.Kathpalia vs Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744 [SC]; (vi) Bharat Singh v. Narendera Kumar [2004] (13) SCC 691; (vii) Dinesh Nagin…

Sri. Govindachary vs. D.C.I.T

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

ITA 1809/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.S. PrashanthFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (D.R)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 249

…eals. 3.4.1 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record, including the judicial decisions cited. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil V Shantaram Baburao Patil & Ors (2002) 253 ITR 798 has held that while exercising discretion, distinction should be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days, which may deserve a liberal approach. The exercise of discretion, their Lordships observed, would depend on the facts of each case and no hard or fast rule can be laid down in this regard.…

Wardex Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3117/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.3116 & 3117/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-2008 & 2008-2009)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Chandrasekaran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT
Section 5

…y of 38 days occurred. The delay of 38 days was condoned by the Supreme Court in view of the decision of the Supreme Court I.T.A.Nos.3116 & 3117/Mds/2014 :- 4 -: rendered in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatbai Bahurao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil, 253 ITR 798, in this case it was held that in exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between 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 a relev…