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

M/S. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2278/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…aphire Developers, New Delhi. oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.” The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vyjayantibhai Baburao Patil vs., Santaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before him and for cause of substantial justice, condon…

M/S. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2277/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…aphire Developers, New Delhi. oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.” The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vyjayantibhai Baburao Patil vs., Santaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before him and for cause of substantial justice, condon…

M/S. Pegasus Softech (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2274/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…aphire Developers, New Delhi. oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.” The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vyjayantibhai Baburao Patil vs., Santaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before him and for cause of substantial justice, condon…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Vinman Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1980/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…aphire Developers, New Delhi. oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.” The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vyjayantibhai Baburao Patil vs., Santaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before him and for cause of substantial justice, condon…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gee Gee Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1975/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…aphire Developers, New Delhi. oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.” The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vyjayantibhai Baburao Patil vs., Santaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before him and for cause of substantial justice, condon…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Nageshwar Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1972/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…aphire Developers, New Delhi. oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.” The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vyjayantibhai Baburao Patil vs., Santaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before him and for cause of substantial justice, condon…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Witness Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1971/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…aphire Developers, New Delhi. oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.” The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vyjayantibhai Baburao Patil vs., Santaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before him and for cause of substantial justice, condon…

M/S Vinman Estates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1589/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…aphire Developers, New Delhi. oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.” The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vyjayantibhai Baburao Patil vs., Santaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before him and for cause of substantial justice, condon…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Believe Developers & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 6444/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…aphire Developers, New Delhi. oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.” The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vyjayantibhai Baburao Patil vs., Santaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before him and for cause of substantial justice, condon…

Vinayak Care Solutation (P) Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Oto Ward 3(2), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 137/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ito-3(2) Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 115, Atlanta Estate Vs. Goregaon, Mulund Link Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcv8500G Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema & P.D. Nagar Ars Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhopal Dated 08.02.2016 For The Assessment

Section 5

…Care Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ] be filed in time. Ld. counsel submitted that a lenient view may be adopted. Ld. counsel place reliance on various case laws as under:- S.N Particulars (Citations) o 01 ) Vedabi alias Vijayantbai Patel vs. Shantaram Patel (2002) 253 ITR 798 SC) -, 02) Mahavir Prasad Jain vs. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 331 (MP) 03) M/s. Mihani Network vs. CCCE (2014) 23 ITJ 621 (MP) 04) M/s. Jetu Steels vs. DCIT (2012) 19 ITJ 616 (MP) 05) Hawkins Cookers Ltd vs. State of MP (WP no.15783, 15787 & 15788) Judgment dt. 04.11.2019 (MP) 06) Sujata Verma vs. ITO (2012) 20 IT} 5 (Indore Bench) 07) Narayan Balmukund…

M/S. Trained Brain Education Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1661/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Trained Brain Education Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 116/3A, Krishna Reddy Building, Income Tax, Sgr Dental College Building, Cpc (Tds), Near Railway Gate, Ghaziabad. Sgr Dental College Road, Munne Kolala, Marathalli Po, Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aadct 1220 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) - 3, Bengaluru, Dated 02.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In Addition To Various Grounds Raised By The Assessee On Merit, This Is One Of The Grounds Raised By The Assessee That Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT

…the case of J. V Advani and Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT as reported in 72 ITR 395 (SC). He also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabair Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil as reported in 253 ITR 798 (SC). At this juncture, the Bench pointed out that the second judgment cited by learned DR of the Revenue is not in the proceedings under IT Act, 1961 and this judgment is in a case between two individuals and therefore, this judgment has no relevance in the present case. In reply, learned DR of the Revenue had nothing to say. But he submitted th…

M/S.Kolet Resorts Club Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. The Income Tax Officer-Ward-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3473/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Laxmikanth Rathi, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. Nos: 3473 to 3475/AHD/2015 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2011-12) M/s. Kolet Resorts Club V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pvt. Ltd. P. Murali & Co. 4 (3), Ahmedabad Chartered Accountants 6- 1st 3-655/2/2, Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderbad-82. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACK8607J Appellant by : Shri Laxmikanth Rathi, AR Respondent by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 21 -11-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 16 -01-2020 PER MAHAVIR PR…

Prabha Vinimay (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1584/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

…ry 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 & Ors. 253 ITR 798(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of condonation of delay observed that substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence, I condone the delay of 799 days. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits I set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and dire…

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

…justice. SCC 338, 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.…

M/S Emsons Organics Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1088/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Addressing The Same, Parties Were Heard On The Delay Of 615 Days Pointed Out By The Registry In Each Of The Appeals Filed.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chanderjeet Singh, CIT-DR

…06, 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page 16 of 17 assessee cannot be made to suffer on account of the negligence of his counsel. The said view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of V edabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Sh antaram Baburao Patil & ors. 253 ITR 798 (S.C). 7.9 In the facts of the present case, as set out in greater detail hereinabove where we have accepted the explanation offered on behalf of the assessee as bonafide and true, we deem it appropriate to also address the response of the ld. CIT-DR who though has not opposed the condonation of delay, however, has requested that the assessee…

Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 4295/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Shafiq Khan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 5

…O [1979] 118 ITR 873, the Calcutta High Court held that a Tribunal can condone the delay if there was sufficient cause for the delay in the submission of the appeal. In the case of Vedabai alias Vijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798' (SC), where it was held that while exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the period prescribed, 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…

Ashok D Thakkar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 86/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidni, CIT-DR

…eld that a 6 ITA.No.86/SRT/2019 Sh. Ashok D. Thakkar, Surat. Tribunal can condone the delay if there was sufficient cause for the delay in the submission of the appeal. In the case of Vedabai alias Vijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798' (SC), where it was held that while exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the period prescribed, 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…

Kiran Gulab Bhatia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Range 24(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6404/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 6404 To 6411/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) बिधम/ Kiran Gulab Bhatia Ito Range-24(2)(3) Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 130, Shaheed Bhagatsingh Vs. Colony, Andheri Kurla Peramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Mumbai-12. 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapb6296K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2011-12 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 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:- ITA. Nos. 6404 to 6411/Mum/2017 A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 “3. The legislature h…

M/S.Kerala Medical Services Corpn Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(4), Trivandrum

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 109/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 249(3)

…see before the Assessing Officer. Hence, in our opinion, there are good and sufficient reasons for filing the appeals belatedly before the CIT(A). 4.1 The Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao patil (253 ITR 798) held 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 a relevant factor s…

M/S.Kerala Medical Services Corpn Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(4), Trivandrum

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 108/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 249(3)

…see before the Assessing Officer. Hence, in our opinion, there are good and sufficient reasons for filing the appeals belatedly before the CIT(A). 4.1 The Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao patil (253 ITR 798) held 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 a relevant factor s…