← 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

Mseb Employee Co Operative Credit Society Ltd Jalna, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1 Jalna, Jalna

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

ITA 1685/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1685/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Girish LaddaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

filing of the appeal. ldCIT(A) has dismissed the same in limine confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee in filing of the appeal in time before ld.CIT(A). He submitted that given an opportunity the 2 MSEB Employee Coop. Credit ... ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant about the notice of hearing and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 4 MSEB Employee Coop. Credit

Only B2B Ites Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1197/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1197/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Abhay A. Avchat
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

INSC 382 dated 21.03.2025, are of the considered view that for sub- serving the cause of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned as reasonable cause prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within statutory time and the assessee would not have gained any benefit from delaying the appeal. Thus

M/S K.N.S. Exports Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 14/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

C.I.T. (A), NFACerred on facts and law in dismissing the Appeal without adjudicating the Grounds of Appeal and without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause being medical reason for not making compliance in the proceedings. (2) That the Counsel of the Assessee Company CA Sandeep Tandon who is looking ... invalid and subsequent Assessment Proceedings are also invalid. (6) That the Lower Authorities failed to appreciate that there was a reasonable cause for non compliance of notice u/s 148 and subsequent assessment passed u/s 147 r. w. s. 144 of I. T. Act. Assessee Company was not aware

Vishnu Vardhan Cheruvu, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 1522/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1522/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishnu Vardhan Cheruvu, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. 308, A Block, Sri Krupa Towers, Sringeri Colony Street N1, Mohannagar, Kothaper, Hyderabad- 500035. Pan : Ajfpc8382H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 17.04.2025 Relevant To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Did Not Condone The Delay Of 333 Days & Also Did Not Provide An Opportunity To Provide The Reasons For Delay. It Is Also Submitted That The Delay Was On Account Of Tax Consultant Who Is Looking After The Taxation Work. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Objection If The Delay Is Condoned & Matter Is Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 250(6)

approach I hereby condone the delay of 333 days in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC as it was due to reasonable cause. Further, since Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not dealt with the merits of the case, I hereby restore all the grounds of appeal raised

Kandasamy Rajendran, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Salem

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 712/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:712/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kandasamy Rajendran, Ito, 80-H6 Behind S.P.Bungalow, Vs. Ward 1 (1), Kambar Street, Salem. Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. [Pan:Ahhpr-9653-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Goutami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Goutami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 69A

712/Chny/2025 the same. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

Prachi Agarwal, Ramnagar vs. Dc/ACIT Cent Haldwani at Mrt, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 27/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

assessments. Since delay in obtaining audit reports from statutory auditors under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules could be seen as a reasonable cause for delayed submission of audit reports held that no penalty under section 271B was to be imposed on assessee. 4 Prachi Agarwal ... present case, the Assessee was having reasonable cause for delayed submission of audit reports and the same has been filed well within passing the assessment order. Therefore, by respectfully following the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Chavakkad Service

Shri Tirupati Balaji Traders, Nainital vs. ACIT, Nainital

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

ITA 214/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Shri Tirupati Balaji Traders, Circle-3, 86 Ramsay Road, Vs. Nainital. Tallital, Nainital-263001, Uttarakhand. Pan-Acdfs8473Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv., Department By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/07/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 30.05.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, From The Perusal Of The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), It Is Seen That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Orders Ex-Parte Without Providing Sufficient Opportunities Of Being Heard To The Assessee, Thereby Confirming The Additions Made By The Ao. Regarding Delay In Filing Of Appeal, An Application Algonwith Affidavit Shri Tirupati Balaji Traders Vs. Acit Is Filed Before Us Wherein It Is Stated That The Firm Got Dissolved & Partner Did Not Access To It Portal. When Assessee Sought Advise From Counsel For Vsv, The Fact Of Passing Of Order By Cit(A) Came To The Notice. Under These Circumstances, Appeal Was Filed Delay. Ld. Ar Accordingly Prayed For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal & Further Prayed To Delete The Additions Made On Assumptions & Presumptions. 3. The Ld. Cit-Dr Supported The Orders Of The Lower Authorities.

Under these facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay as the assessee has successfully demonstrated that it has reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Further this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits

Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 69C

notice(s) issued under section 142(1) of the Act, and that the appellant has not been able to establish that there was any reasonable cause for such failure, within the meaning of section 273B. The action of the A.O. in imposing penalty of Rs 20,000/- under section ... submissions of learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). We find that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued

Pragnesh Kantarya, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Surendranagar, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 485/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 485/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pragnesh Kantariya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd –1, (Prop. Of Vision Industies) Surendranagar, Income Tax Office, B2-1101, Shilpan Onyx, Gangotri Park Opp. Mela Medan, Main Road, University Road, Surendranagar-363001 Rajkot – 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bbspk0467P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

kantariya 9. It would be appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to established before the Tribunal that there exist a reasonable cause for non- representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty of the assessee, if so advised, to seek for a recall

Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 999/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.999/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna Brahman Galli, Nandi Mandir, Kadrabad, Jalna- 431203 Maharashtra Pan-Anrpn9966G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 208Section 234Section 234ASection 250

record. On going through the contents of application and after hearing Ld. Departmental 2 Representative (DR), I am of the considered view that for reasonable cause assessee could not file the appeal in time. Taking guidance from judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case ... hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. 4 Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Nirmalabai F. Jalnapure, Pune vs. Asst. Unit Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 798/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.798/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Vs Asst. Unit Nirmalabai F. Jalnapure, Flat No. B/2, Priyanka Income Tax, Residency, Opp. Pmc Pune School, Hadapsar, Pune- 41128 Maharashtra Pan-Azipj3217D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

gold and source of saving funds. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Ulka Madhukar Shinde, Panvel vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 600/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Shri Anthony DsonzaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 147Section 271

assessee in his affidavit, we find some merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. 2.4 We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land

Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandir, Hingolie, Hingoli vs. DCIT, Cir-Aurangabad, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1531/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1531/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vs Dcit Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, 01 Exemption Akola Road, Hingoli S.O Circle, Basamba, Hingoli-431513 Aurangabad Maharashtra Pan-Aabtd5118M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 250(6)

dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. He submitted that the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was for reasonable cause and deserves to be condoned. He also requested that the issue on merits may please be 3 restored to the file ... when the trustee came to know about the additions that the delayed appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A). However even there was a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal, in my considered view Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay. Therefore in the larger interest

Narhari Maharaj Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Ltd, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for as per terms indicated above

ITA 1458/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1458/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vs Ito, Ward Narhari Maharaj Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., 1(4), Jalgaon C/O Bhagyesh Hari Dhakane, 18, Pitashri, Gruhkul Colony, Midc, Jalgaon-425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aaaan6252G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawaiaFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

assessee society is placed on record. After going through the application and also hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), I observe that reasonable cause gave rise to the said delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated ... affidavit and considering the ratio laid down by the High Court in the case of Inder Singh (Supra) , I am of the view that reasonable cause prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time and therefore of 182 days in filing of appeal is condoned and admit

Shrikant Herwade Family Trust, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1452/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 154Section 161(1)Section 250

have any hesitation to condone the delay of 4 years for filing the application under section 154 of the IT Act due to reasonable cause and genuine in nature and we consider accordingly, it is a fit case for remand for proper adjudication of the case by following the established

Shrikant Herwade Family Trust, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward(2)(1), Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1451/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 154Section 161(1)Section 250

have any hesitation to condone the delay of 4 years for filing the application under section 154 of the IT Act due to reasonable cause and genuine in nature and we consider accordingly, it is a fit case for remand for proper adjudication of the case by following the established

Shrikant Herwade Family Trust, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward(2)(1), Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1450/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1449 To 1452/Pun/2025

Section 154Section 161(1)Section 250

have any hesitation to condone the delay of 4 years for filing the application under section 154 of the IT Act due to reasonable cause and genuine in nature and we consider accordingly, it is a fit case for remand for proper adjudication of the case by following the established

Shrikant Herwade Family Trust, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward(2)(1), Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1449/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 154Section 161(1)Section 250

have any hesitation to condone the delay of 4 years for filing the application under section 154 of the IT Act due to reasonable cause and genuine in nature and we consider accordingly, it is a fit case for remand for proper adjudication of the case by following the established

Nikita Rameshchandra Shankarwala, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

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

ITA 1379/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1379/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Vs Ito, Ward 5, Nikita Rameshchandra Shankarwala, Sangli B/9 Block No. 4, Ratanshinagar, Near Amarai Garden, Sangli- 416416 Maharashtra Pan-Bnips8905A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89

hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Mr. Vijay Ashok Jeswant, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1270/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan, Tax PractitionerFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra), I am of the view that there was a „reasonable cause‟ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. I, therefore, condone the delay of 587 days and admit the appeal