← All Phrases

“reasonable cause”

PenaltySection 273BSection 273B7,285 judgments

The decision most relied on for reasonable cause is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reasonable cause

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court
368
citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
115 TTJ 419 · 2008 · ITAT
292
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) is not leviable when the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause for such non-compliance. The decision defines what constitutes 'reasonable cause' in this context.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court
182
citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.
153 ITR 596 · 1985 · High Court
171
citing judgments

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO
100 ITD 87 · 2006 · ITAT
121
citing judgments

When substantial justice and procedural technicalities are in conflict, especially in cases involving non-deliberate delay, the cause of substantial justice must be prioritized. The opposing party cannot claim a vested right to benefit from injustice due to such delays.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.
262 ITR 260 · 2003 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Journal entries for accepting or repaying loans and deposits, without any actual cash transaction, do not violate the provisions of Section 269SS or Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, such transactions do not attract penalties under Section 271D or Section 271E.

Judgments citing reasonable cause

Santanu Roy, ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Ems Polyset Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2194/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant Vs. Ems Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [Pan: Aaace5551F] Appearances By: Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By The Cit(Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Ita No.2193/Kol/2024 For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 27 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Revenue Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

filing both the present appeals. The revenue filed applications for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause. We, I.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 EMS Polyset Pvt. Ltd therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits

ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Ems Polyset Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2193/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant Vs. Ems Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [Pan: Aaace5551F] Appearances By: Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By The Cit(Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Ita No.2193/Kol/2024 For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 27 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Revenue Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

filing both the present appeals. The revenue filed applications for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause. We, I.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 EMS Polyset Pvt. Ltd therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits

Shalloo Barar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 4298/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shir Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 144Section 148Section 250

raised by the Appellant while filing the appeal is arbitrary, unjust, and bad in law. 4. That the Appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable causes from effectively participating in the appellate proceedings, as the Appellant was under mental distress due to the unfortunate demise of her husband during

The Borivali Ashwini Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 4170/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

being barred by limitation on the ground that „No sufficient and satisfactory explanation was filed by the assessee to prove that there was a reasonable cause for delay, the said delay could not be condoned.‟ 2. Since the facts of all the appeals filed by the assessee are exactly same ... considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of no sufficient and satisfactory explanation filed by the assessee to prove that there was a reasonable cause for delay. On perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has primarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee

The Borivali Ashwini Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 4169/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 4168/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 4169/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 4170/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) The Borivali Ashwini Co- Operative Housing Society Ltd. Ito Ward 42(1)(5), Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Cts No. 360, Eksar Road, Borivali Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051. (West), Mumbai-400 092 Pan: Aaaat7928B (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement (Respondent) : Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ld. Ar Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. Dr.) : : 12.08.2025 18.08.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (Ј.М.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Common But Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

being barred by limitation on the ground that 'No sufficient and satisfactory explanation was filed by the assessee to prove that there was a reasonable cause for delay, the said delay could not be condoned.' 2. Since the facts of all the appeals filed by the assessee are exactly same ... considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of no sufficient and satisfactory explanation filed by the assessee to prove that there was a reasonable cause for delay. On perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has primarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee

The Borivali Ashwini Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 4168/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

being barred by limitation on the ground that „No sufficient and satisfactory explanation was filed by the assessee to prove that there was a reasonable cause for delay, the said delay could not be condoned.‟ 2. Since the facts of all the appeals filed by the assessee are exactly same ... considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of no sufficient and satisfactory explanation filed by the assessee to prove that there was a reasonable cause for delay. On perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has primarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Mahendra Singh Jain, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3848/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Mahendra Singh Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ward 1(4), Ghaziabad Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad (Pan: Afhpj7049A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govil Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.2.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Patnan For Ay 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:- 1. Because, The Order Of The Ld. Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case. 2. Because, The Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Impugned Proceeding & Assessment Order Whereby All The Notices U/S. 142(1)/144 & Impugned Order Were Issued In The Name Of Deceased Person Against The Provisions Of Section 159 Of The Act Hence, The Order Is Null & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sangeet Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 159

appeal before the Tribunal. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I am of the of the considered view that the reasonable cause for the same has been attributed to the assessee, hence, I condone the delay in dispute. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that assessment

K L D A V College, Roorkee, Haridwar vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(4), Roorkee, Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 140BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act without appreciating the facts that delay in furnishing of Audit Report is condonable on reasonable cause and appellant's application for condonation u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act is yet to be decided by the competent authority. 6. That without

The Large Size Co-Op Society Limited, Kamavarapukota, West Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 420/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 418, 419 & 420/Viz/2025 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) The Large Size Co-Op Society Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kamavarapukota. Ward-1, Pan: Aadat0456D Eluru. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Large Site Coop Society Ltd 3. On a perusal of the above, we are of the considered view that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause ie., due to allegation on the assessee-society and the consequent enquiry by the Cooperative Department officials, that prevented the assessee in filing

The Large Size Co-Op Society Ltd. Kamavarapukota, West Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 419/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 418, 419 & 420/Viz/2025 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) The Large Size Co-Op Society Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kamavarapukota. Ward-1, Pan: Aadat0456D Eluru. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Large Site Coop Society Ltd 3. On a perusal of the above, we are of the considered view that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause ie., due to allegation on the assessee-society and the consequent enquiry by the Cooperative Department officials, that prevented the assessee in filing

Varudu Sujatha, Srikakulam Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 417/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 417/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Varudu Sujatha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Saravakota, Ward-1, Srikakulam Dist. Srikakulam. Pan: Agypv1948A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)

case on merits. 5. On the other hand, it was submission of the Ld. DR that the assessee failed to give a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 167 days in filing the appeal and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had left with no option except dismissing

Madhavarao Yarrakula, Tenali vs. ITO, Ward I, Tenali

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 244/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Madhavarao Yarrakula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tenali. Ward-1, Pan: Akxyp5376N Tenali. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Dl Narasimha Rao, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri DL Narasimha RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Madhavarao Yarrakula 5. On the other hand, it was submission of the Ld. DR that the assessee failed to give a sufficient and reasonable cause for belated filing of the appeal and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had left with no option except dismissing the appeal. Therefore, she pleaded

Viswanathapillai Saranyadevi, Trivandrum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(3), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 508/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Viswanathapillai Saranyadevi .......... Appellant House No. 1, Kavery Gardens, Kurihathi Manacaud P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695009 [Pan: Dvfps6621L] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 148Section 2Section 271(1)(b)

aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty in the absence of any reasonable cause. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared

Thumboor Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 439/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thumboor Multipurpose Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Vellangallur, Thumboor P.O., Thrissur 680662 [Pan: Aaeat8193N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.06.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Multipurpose Of Co-Operative Society. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 21.06.2018 Disclosing Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

evidence 3 Thumboor Multipurpose Co-op. Society Ltd. contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed limit. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. We heard the rival submissions

Panamaram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Panamaram, Wayanad vs. JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 433/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)

cooperative society. Without prejudice to the above, it is contended that the penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271E where there is a reasonable cause for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that the provisions of section 269SS ... society by making a reference to the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and the contention of the appellant that there was a reasonable cause for accepting deposits in cash from members was also rejected. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee-cooperative society is in appeal before this Tribunal

Panamaram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Panamaram vs. JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 432/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)

cooperative society. Without prejudice to the above, it is contended that the penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271E where there is a reasonable cause for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that the provisions of section 269SS ... society by making a reference to the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and the contention of the appellant that there was a reasonable cause for accepting deposits in cash from members was also rejected. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee-cooperative society is in appeal before this Tribunal

Shafi Musaliar Sainalabdeen Musaliar, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 231/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

delay. After considering the submissions, I.T.A. No.231 & S.A. No.44/COCH/2025 Shafi Musaliar Sainalabdeen Musaliar we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, late Shafi

Jyoti Sharma, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Panchkula

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

ITA 192/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 245Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

adjournment application has been submitted by Mr. Vigyan Prakash Arora, Counsel for the assessee. On perusal of the adjournment application, I find that no reasonable cause has been stated which prevented the Counsel from attending to the present proceedings. Further, it is noted that adjournment has been sought earlier ... thereafter provided to the Counsel for filing the appeal and appeals were filed. The Ld. CIT(A) has however held that these were not reasonable cause for delayed filing of the appeal and the appeal was held not maintainable and the same was dismissed. 5. I also refer

Kuldeep Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 187/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

purpose of filing the present appeal. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there was a reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal as the assessee cannot penalized for fault on part of the Counsel. Further, the Courts have held that where

Kshatriya Dnyati Maratha Samaj Sanghatana, Guhagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 817/PUN/2025[AY 2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(E). It should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise 4 Kshatriya Dnyati Maratha Samaj Sanghatana required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed