Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.36 seconds)
P.B. Patel & Co.,, Ankleshwar vs Assessee on 13 April, 2007 cites

Income-Tax Officer vs First Leasing Co. Of India Ltd. on 8 May, 1985

4. The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to the affidavit of Smt. Pravina Patel, partner in the assessee firm for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and submitted that the appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A) on the advice of Shri Kishore Surti, Chartered Accountant and the appeal proceedings were attended by Shri Bakul Parikh, Advocate. The assessee approached Shri Kishore Surti, Chartered Accountant but he advised that there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that on receipt of the penalty order dated 06-06-2008 the assessee approached M/s. Mukund & Rohit, Chartered Accountants who have advised that they should have preferred the appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that due to wrong advice there was a delay of 3836 days in filing the appeal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal is inadvertent, bona fide and purely on account of wrong advice of the legal counsels. He has, therefore, ITA No.2557/Ahd/2008 4 M/s. P. B. Patel & Co. VS ITO, W-4, Bharuch prayed that delay may be condoned. He has relied upon the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ITO Vs Second Leasing (P) Ltd. 18 SOT 557 in which it was held that "the advice of the Counsel not to prefer cross objections was held to be reasonable cause" and delay was accordingly condoned. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Improvement Trust.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 45 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Shri Haro Singh vs Shri Ajay Kumar Chawla And Ors. on 14 January, 2004

5. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the learned Counsel for the assessee admitted the addition before the learned CIT(A) because of the details reflected in the TDS certificate which exceeded the amount declared in the return of income. The learned DR submitted that even in the reply to the show cause for enhancement in respect of the total receipt, the assessee's Counsel did not submit any explanation and accepted the claim of the AO that the addition is to be made further. The learned DR, therefore, submitted that there is no question of giving wrong advice by the counsel who was appearing for the assessee. The learned DR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haro Singh Vs Ajay Kumar Chawla & Ors in CR NO.810/2001 dated 14-12-2004 in which the Hon'ble High Court ITA No.2557/Ahd/2008 5 M/s. P. B. Patel & Co. VS ITO, W-4, Bharuch considering its earlier decision held that "the counsel must disclose the circumstances in which incorrect advice was given and it is not sufficient to make a perfunctory and general statement that the wrong advice was given bona fide". The learned DR submitted that since in that case no sufficient cause for delay has been shown and no complaint was filed against the advocate who purportedly gave wrong advice. Therefore, the petitioner of the petition was dismissed being time barred. The learned DR therefore, submitted that it is not a case of wrong advice, therefore, delay should not be condoned in the matter and that there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the delay should not be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed being time barred.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - V Sen - Full Document

Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil And Ors on 20 July, 2001

In the case of Vedabhai alias Vijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. 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 delay is of a few days. The Court observed that whereas in the former consideration of prejudice to the other side will be relevant factor and calls for a more cautious approach. In the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. Now in the present case delay is not of a few days but of 383 days. Besides, there is absolutely no valid explanation/reason for the delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 655 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ram Mohan Kabra on 12 January, 1999

In the case of CIT V. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held and observed that where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can only be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. In this case delay for filing the appeal late for only a few days was not condoned.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 64 - S Kumar - Full Document
1