Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Y. P. Trivedi vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Y. P. Trivedi vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 6, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (YPTrivedi_delay_condonation.pdf)


Delay in filing appeal due to CA’s fault is bona fide & must be condoned

The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was delayed by 496 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the assessee claimed that he had handed over the papers to his Chartered Accountant and that the latter had mixed up the papers with other papers in his office which led to the delay. The department opposed the application on the ground that there was “gross negligence” on the part of the assessee and that sufficient cause for the delay was not explained. HELD by the Tribunal:

The facts do not suggest that the assessee has acted in a malafide manner or that the reasons explained are only a device to cover an ulterior purpose. It is a settled proposition of law that Courts should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and the reason for delay is bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. The Court should be liberal in construing sufficient cause and should lean in favour of such party. Whenever substantial Justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, cause of substantial Justice has to be preferred. On facts, the reasons explained by the assessee show that due to bonafide mistake and inadvertence, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 496 days has to be condoned (Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471(SC) referred).

Contrast with the approach in Kunal Surana vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Related Posts:

  • Soman Sun Citi vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of opportunity of cross examination by the authorities below as right of cross examination is not absolute as in the instant case even primary onus that fell on the assessee did not stood discharged. Had assessee discharged its primary onus,…
  • Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities below, which may entail huge liability…
  • Ratanlal C. Bafna vs. JCIT (ITAT Pune) Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case and in view of the decisions cited hereinabove, we are of the view that in the present case since the appeal against the order of the Tribunal has already been admitted and a substantial question of law has been…
  • M/s Brothers & Sisters Enterprise vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The Criteria / Guidelines for Income tax Scrutiny dated 10th September 2011 authorize the Assessing Officer to select any return for scrutiny after recording the reasons and obtaining approval of the CCIT/CIT. The case under the category should be selected if, they are compelling the reasons and the case selected…
  • Nokia Networks OY vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) HELD by majority in favour of the assessee: According to the Supreme Court in Formula One World Championship Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 394 ITR 80 (SC), the ‘disposal test’ is paramount which needs to be seen while analyzing fixed place PE under Article 5(1). Though in our humble understanding,…
  • TLG India Private Limited vs. JCIT (Bombay High Court) While we allow withdrawal of these certificates and impugned in this Writ Petition with liberty to issue fresh certificates in accordance with law, we clarify that no functionary other than the officer referred to in the relevant statutory provision, namely Section 197 and the Rule 28AA of the Income Tax…

Related Judgements

  1. ITO vs. Ellora Silk Mills (ITAT Mumbai) 

    (i) Where the AO had accepted in the past that the warehousing charges received by the assessee was business income, he was not justified in reopening the assessment to assess the charges as property income in the absense of any … ITO vs. Ellora Silk Mills (ITAT Mumbai)…
  2. Development Consultants vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) 

    Where the assessee entered into “international transactions” with “associated enterprises” and the AO made adjustments to the arms length price, held, deleting the adjustments that:

    (i) In order to determine the most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price, it is first necessary to select the ‘tested party’ and…
  3. ITO vs. Lotia Co.op Hsg. Soc. (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the assessee was a co.op society and it and its members entered into a development agreement with a builder pursuant to which Tranferable Development Rights (TDR) entitled to be received under the Development Control Regulations was assigned to the developer for the repairs and redevelopment of the…
  4. ACIT vs. Indexport Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the AO made a disallowance u/s 14A by estimating 10% of the expenses as being attributable to the tax free receipts and in the appeal before the Tribunal the department argued that in view of the judgement of the Special Bench of the ITAT in Daga Capital…
  5. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Though s. 92B(2) provides for a situation where even a transaction between two non-associated enterprises can be subject to the transfer pricing provisions, it is essential that there should first be an “AE” with whom there exists an “international transaction” before it can be examined whether the international transaction…
One comment on “Y. P. Trivedi vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)”
  1. vijay kalia says:
    September 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    The case laws needs to be read under the relevant statutes for condonation of delay as law of limitation’s applicability is sometimes excluded and Mst.Katji 167 ITR 471 SC may not be good law under S.35 of C. E. Act,1944. There are citations to that effect of Singh Bros and others of HC & SC.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*