← 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

Nathoo Lalji Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3925/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)

noted from the impugned assessment order that the entire proceedings were undertaken during the period of pandemic of Covid- 19 and there exists reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from making compliance with the requirements called for by the Ld. AO. Before the first appellate authority, assessee could not attend

Nathoo Lalji Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3924/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)

noted from the impugned assessment order that the entire proceedings were undertaken during the period of pandemic of Covid- 19 and there exists reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from making compliance with the requirements called for by the Ld. AO. Before the first appellate authority, assessee could not attend

Nathoo Lalji Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3923/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)

noted from the impugned assessment order that the entire proceedings were undertaken during the period of pandemic of Covid- 19 and there exists reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from making compliance with the requirements called for by the Ld. AO. Before the first appellate authority, assessee could not attend

Nathoo Lalji Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3907/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)

noted from the impugned assessment order that the entire proceedings were undertaken during the period of pandemic of Covid- 19 and there exists reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from making compliance with the requirements called for by the Ld. AO. Before the first appellate authority, assessee could not attend

Atul Agarwal, New Devpuri Bhatipura Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Meerut

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3785/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2020-21 Atul Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Meerut 474, Dev Puri, Bhatipura, Meerut-250002, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aewpa0627H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.08.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

delay was occurred due to death of the assessee’s counsel. In view of above, I am of the view that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal, hence, the delay in dispute is condoned. 4. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records

Naresh Kumar, Balachaur vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr, Nawanshar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 59/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 221(1)Section 250

much as the Ld. CIT Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal though the accepting that the Appellant had reasonable cause. 4. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -NFAC, Delhi is against law and facts on the file

ITO(Exemption), Ward-2(4), Shillong vs. North East Society of Sisters of the Holy Cross, Meghalaya

ITA 81/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

filed Form 10B. The Court held that the error on the part of auditor cannot be rejected but should be accepted as a reasonable cause shown by the trust management. In that case also, Petitioner did not suo moto realize its mistake and filed a condonation request only after Centralised

Mangharam Moolchand Verma, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 765/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.765/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Mangharam Moolchand Verma Vs. Ito, 703, Smita Park, Sarela Wadi, Ward - 1(3)(3), Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpv1629D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayashree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/08/2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee was not intentional and that he was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore, in the interest of justice, delay may be condoned and admitted for hearing. On the other hand

State Institute of Chidrens Literature, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 539/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 State Institue Of Childrens Literature .......... Appellant Sanskrit College Campus, Palayalam Thiruvananthapuram 695034 [Pan: Aajts9037Q] Vs. Ito, Ward - 1(3), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Society Setup By The Government Of Kerala Formed With The Objective Of Promotion Of Education & Literature, Promote Reading Habits & Promote Affinity Towards Culture Among Children. No Return Of Income Was Filed By The Appellant Society For Ay 2019-20. Based On The Information Available In The It Portal That Interest Of Rs. 21,37,898/- Was Received By The Appellant, The Ito, Ward-1(3)

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

evidence contrary, I am 3 State Institue of Childrens Literature of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed limit. Accordingly, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. During the course of hearing

Dharmendra Kumar, Bhanwargarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Baran

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

ITA 1322/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal, CA, (Thru: V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 249(4)

delay occurred in filing the appeal by the assessee was being a farmer and having no awareness of income tax proceedings. So there is reasonable cause that the assessee had no knowledge of order. As soon as, he knew about recovery demand then he tried to file the appeal

Jayshree Nilam Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Intl. Taxn., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 942/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271A(1)(d)Section 272(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming the said penalty without properly appreciating that there existed a reasonable cause for the default, as envisaged under section 273B of the Act. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before

Sundeep Sethi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1248/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1248/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sundeep Sethi…….……………………………...………………..….……….Appellant 164, M. G. Road, Burra Bazar, Kol-7. [Pan: Alaps7114C] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata ………..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sima Das Biswas, Jcit-Sr.Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. At The Outset The Ld. Ar Stated That There Is A Delay Of 374 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Cause For The Belated Filing. We After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause In Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.12,79,510/-. Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee For The Reasons That The Assessee In Ei Schedule Of The Said Return Has Claimed Exempt Income Under The Head ‘Long Term Capital Gains’ From Transaction On Which Securities Transaction Tax Is Paid. In

Section 148Section 43(2)Section 68

that there is a delay of 374 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay citing reasonable cause for the belated filing. We after considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Trinity Vintrade Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1001/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1001/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ………………...………………..….……….Appellant Vs. Trinity Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.………..........................…….........……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, Room No.22, 22 Canning Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aadct2156P] Appearances By: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 26.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013–14. 2. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Cause For The Belated Filing. We, After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, Satisfy That The Revenue Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause In Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013–14 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.70,440/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act For The Reason That A Sum Of Rs.8,00,056/- Was Transferred From One M/S Purayita Vanija Pvt. Ltd. To The Assessee’S Bank Account During The Year & Found That The Alleged

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

that there is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay citing reasonable cause for the belated filing. We, after considering the submissions and materials on record, satisfy that the revenue was prevented by reasonable cause in filing

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 959/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

medical reasons for delay. After considering the Affidavits filed by the assessees’ and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessees’ in not filing the appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

medical reasons for delay. After considering the Affidavits filed by the assessees’ and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessees’ in not filing the appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

medical reasons for delay. After considering the Affidavits filed by the assessees’ and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessees’ in not filing the appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

medical reasons for delay. After considering the Affidavits filed by the assessees’ and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessees’ in not filing the appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

ITA 955/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore - 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit (Central)-2, Vs. Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) & Shri. S.Anatharaman, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin C.N, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

medical reasons for delay. After considering the Affidavits filed by the assessees' and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessees' in not filing the appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests

Subramaniam Mohan Sudaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 954/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

medical reasons for delay. After considering the Affidavits filed by the assessees’ and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessees’ in not filing the appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 953/CHNY/2025[953]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

medical reasons for delay. After considering the Affidavits filed by the assessees’ and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessees’ in not filing the appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests