Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.37 seconds)
Block Education Officer, Durg, Durg vs Income Tax Officer (Tds), Bhilai, Durg on 29 January, 2024 cites

State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971

Katiji and others(SC), M/s Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT (Kar HC), State of West Bengal vs. Administrator Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749 (SC), Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumhari and Ors. 1968 (9) TMI 116 (SC), The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circile-4(1), Raipur Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board 2023 (10) TMI 25 ITAT, Raipur, referred to (supra), it is incomprehensible to apply the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions wherein the assessee was allowed the condonation of delay on the ground that the deliberate carelessness, culpable negligence and malafides of the assessee have not been established / observed or presumed, as perceived by the Hon'ble Courts, thus, on account of satisfaction w.r.t. sufficient cause involved due to which the delay was occurred, the appeals of the assessee were directed to be admitted by condoning the delay. In the present case, as observed hereinabove the conduct of the assessee was throughout found to be careless, evasive, lackadaisical and non-compliant, thus, the case of the assessee altogether stands on different footing and distinguishable facts qua the reasons occasioned the delay as against the facts / reasons in the cases relied upon by the assessee, accordingly the principle laid down in the cases relied upon by the assessee cannot support or rescue the contention or explanations of the assessee 18 ITA Nos. 364, 365,366,367 & 368/RPR/2023 Block Education Officer, Durg stating the reasons by which the assessee has attempted to establish the bonafide mistake, unintentional default or sufficient cause while seeking the condonation of delay in filing of the appeals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 827 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Tractors And Farm Equipments Ltd. on 25 August, 2006

decision of the Tribunal, in the case of Jt. CIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai), wherein a fine distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay. It was held as under: 22 ITA No. 323/RPR/2023 & 18 Others Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit "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 so the case calls for a more cautious approach, but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach." In the present case before me, the delay of 493 days cannot be simply condoned on the basis of the hollow claim of the assessee that the same had occasioned for the multi facet reasons, viz. (i) that as the earlier chartered accountant of the assessee society, viz. Shri Rakesh Khandelwal who was looking after the matter before the CIT(Appeals) had unfortunately expired in the month of April, 2021, therefore, its case for the said reason had, thereafter, remained unattended; (ii) that the assessee society is based in a rural area; (iii) that the staff of the assessee society which was working under the Government supervision and Jila Sahakari Bank in a rural area, was not computer literate; (iv) that books of the account of the assessee society was being manually maintained; and
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 14 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961

18. Also, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR (1962) 361 (SC) that seeker of justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeal 23 ITA No. 323/RPR/2023 & 18 Others Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit before me the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the inordinate delay of 493 days involved in preferring of the same, therefore, I decline to condone the same and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss the captioned appeal of the assessee society as barred by limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 816 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 Next