Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (1.33 seconds)Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 10AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Mewa Ram (Deceased) By His L.Rs. And Ors vs State Of Haryana Through The ... on 26 August, 1986
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters
laid down for condoning the delay and 17 | 2 2 condoning the delay for the
reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding
the statutory provision.''
Therefore, the Bench is of the considered view that that the decision to condone the
delay has to be exercised judiciously and if the Courts start condoning the delay
where no sufficient cause is made out then that would amount to violation of
statutory principles. Thus the Bench rely upon the decision of Hon'ble High
Court in the case of Mewa Ram (deceased by L.Rs) & Ors vs State of
Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45,State of Nagaland vs Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005
SC 2191 and D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Karal;a & Anr.AIR 2007 SC
2624. Firstly, the assessee was negligent in pursuing the appeal and there is
apparently no due diligence on the part of the assessee in pursuing the appeal.
Section 270A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters
laid down for condoning the delay and 17 | 2 2 condoning the delay for the
reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding
the statutory provision.''
Therefore, the Bench is of the considered view that that the decision to condone the
delay has to be exercised judiciously and if the Courts start condoning the delay
where no sufficient cause is made out then that would amount to violation of
statutory principles. Thus the Bench rely upon the decision of Hon'ble High
Court in the case of Mewa Ram (deceased by L.Rs) & Ors vs State of
Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45,State of Nagaland vs Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005
SC 2191 and D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Karal;a & Anr.AIR 2007 SC
2624. Firstly, the assessee was negligent in pursuing the appeal and there is
apparently no due diligence on the part of the assessee in pursuing the appeal.
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961
18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case of Ramlal, Motilal And
Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd3 has emphasized that even after
sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within
time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing
he delay is A.I.R. 1962 SC 361 the discretionary jurisdiction vested with
the court. The court, despite establishment of a 'sufficient cause' for
various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona
fides of the party.