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

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

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

ITA 3116/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2007-08

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…

Sri.B. Surya Kumar vs. ITO

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2005-06

ITA 1678/BANG/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K, JCIT (D.R)
Section 271A

…ion. 5.1 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 reg…