← 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

Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 907/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 270ASection 271D

proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the instant appeals are allowed Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar. for statistical purposes

Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 906/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 270ASection 271D

proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the instant appeals are allowed Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar. for statistical purposes

Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar vs. JCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 905/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 270ASection 271D

proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the instant appeals are allowed Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar. for statistical purposes

Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 904/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 270ASection 271D

proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the instant appeals are allowed Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar. for statistical purposes

Babu Singh, Shiv vs. ITO, Ward 1 Barmer, Barmer

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

ITA 9/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ld. Cit(A), He Failed To Response On The Date Of Hearing Fixed On 14.07.2023, 22.08.2024 & 06.11.2024. For Such None Appearance & Not Filing Any Reply/Documentary Evidence.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 250(6)

proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refer from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Devendra Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa

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

ITA 660/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal. Application For Condonation

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)

delay, I have carefully gone through the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay and observe that there is a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before this tribunal within permissible time limit. I also note that the assessee would not have gained ... proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Sarafat Ali Khan, Sikar, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1199/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

filing the present appeal. Applications for condonation of delay has 2 Sarafat Lal Khan vs. ITO been filed along with an affidavit mentioning the reasonable cause giving rise to the said delay. After hearing ld. DR and on perusal of affidavit filed for condoning delay I find that for bona ... speaking order as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Praveen Saxena, Lucknow vs. ITO-6(1), Lucknow-New

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 202/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Praveen Saxena V. Income Tax Officer 6(1) Flat No.G-01, Tower-J Lucknow - New Shalimar Gallant Vigyanpuri, Mahanagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ajpps5818N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 09.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.22,57,120/- & Also Claimed Relief Under Section 90 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) For A Sum Of Rs.3,48,632/- Being Foreign Tax Credit. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act & Rejected The Relief Of Rs.3,48,632/- Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 90 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

from Europe to India for the purposes of completing the formalities relating to filing of Form 67. This, in my considered view, is a reasonable cause and for circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee cannot be held to be in fault. Further, the issue before

Hakam Singh, Sangrur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Sangrur, Sangrur

ITA 1130/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1130/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Hakam Singh, The Ito, बनाम C/O Tej Mohan Singh, Ward - Sangrur Advocate, Vs. #527, Sector 10D,Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bdwps5185E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

connectivity issues, it was difficult to communicate and as such this led to the filing of the appeal belatedly. As such, there was a reasonable cause for filing of the late appeal which be condoned in the facts of the case. Grounds of Appeal 5-8 are not pressed Ground

M/S Sunlight Realtors Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2957/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity

M/S Sunlight Realtores Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2956/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity

Bishwnath Jha, Balangir vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 278/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Biswanath Jha, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Gandhinagarpara, Balangir- Sambalpur 767001 Pan/Gir No. Abtpj 6411 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 11/01/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10177/2016-17 Passed For Assessment Year 2013- 14. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 397 Days. The Assessee Has Filed 2. Condonation Petition Dated 2.5.2025 Supported By An Affidavit Stating That The Order Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Dated 11.1.2024 & The Appeal P A G E 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

opposed the condonation petition. 3. After hearing the parties and perusing the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the time and hence, we condone the delay of 397 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts

Kalpana Ray, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Rourkela

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

ITA 221/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Kalpana Ray Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Rourkela Gc 43 Rcms Complex, Panposh Road, Rourkela, 769004 Pan/Gir No. Aiapr 1980 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 27/08/2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10286787 Passed For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 152 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 31.3.2025 Supported With Affidavit Stating The Reasons That The Assesse Was Suffering From L3/L4 Disk Bulge, Lower Back Pain & Leg Pain, For Which She Was Admitted In The Hospital & The P A G E 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147

prayed that the delay may be condoned for adjudication. 3. After considering the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period as prescribed under the Act. Hence, we condone the delay of 152 days in filing

Hindusthan Ore and Mining Private Limited, Barbil vs. ITO, Rourkela, Ayakar Bhawan, Udit Nagar Rourkela

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

ITA 210/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Hindustan Ore & Mining Private Vs. Ito, Rourkela, Ayakar Bhawan, Limited Udit Nagar, Rourkela Opposite East India Crusher Near Gurunanak Petroleum, Barbil, Keonnjhar- 758035 Pan/Gir No. Aacch 7805 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chittaranjan Panda, Ca Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 2 /7/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 2 /7/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 07/06/2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10129894 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Vide Adjournment Petition Dated July 01, 2025, Ld Ar Had Sought Adjournment, Which Is Rejected & The Appeal Is Disposed On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Chittaranjan Panda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 271(1)(c)

days in filing the appeal be condoned. 4. On the other hand, ld Sr DR submitted that the assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for inordinate delay in filing the appeal, therefore, delay should not be condoned. 5. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the condonation petition

Orissa Education Trust, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 202/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar & Rajesh Kumar & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Orissa Education Trust Orissa Education Trust Vs. Acit, Acit, Exemption Exemption Circle, Circle, Plot Plot No. No. 361(A), 361(A), Kuberpuri, K Bhubaneswar Patrapada, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar- 751019 Pan/Gir No. Aa Aaaao 0485 G (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Re Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, Cit Ashim Kr Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 2 /7/202 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 2 /7/202 /2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 06/06/2024 06/06/2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-3/10160/2018-19 Passed For Assessment Year Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17. P A G E 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ADVFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, CIT

prayed that the delay be condoned. 3. On the other hand, ld Sr DR submitted that the assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for inordinate delay in filing the appeal, except that Managing Trustee was ill, therefore, delay should not be condoned. 4. After considering the rival submissions

Bhoomishri Public Charitable Trust, Cuttack vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 194/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar Assessment Year : 2025-26 Bhoomishri Public Charitable Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Hyderabad Trust, Plot No.36/469, Secrtor-8, Cda, Po: Markat Nagar, Avinab Bidanasi, Cuttack. Pan/Gir No. Aaftb 6651 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Hyderabad Dated 20.12.2014 Passed For Assessment Year 2025-26. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 18 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Supported With Affidavit Stating That By The Time The Ld Cit(E) Passed The Impugned Order, The Counsel Of The Assessee Trust Was Busy In Medical Treatment Of His Elder Father, Could Not Be Able To Look Into The P A G E 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 80G

hand, ld Sr DR did not object to the condonation petition. 4. After hearing both the sides, we are satisfied that the assessee had reasonable cause for not preferring the appeal in time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 18 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. Facts

Korripally Sathyanarayana, Tirumalgiri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2(1), Ajmer., Rajasthan

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

ITA 64/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Me. The Assessee Is An Individual & For A.Y 2021-

For Appellant: Shri Sushank, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refer from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Unhel Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

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

ITA 499/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer & Was Unable To Furnish

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 68Section 80P

also directed to update e-mail id and contact details income tax portal and should refrain from taking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Rajasthan Prashasnik Seva Parishad, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Exemption-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 473/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Me. The Only

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(3)

proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refer from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Biswajit Roy, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 866/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

present case, no such petition/prayer/application for condonation of delay is filed much less a sufficient and satisfactory explanation to prove that there is a reasonable cause for the said delay. 8 Biswajit Roy 4.3 In this case, it is evident that the appellant has conveniently decided not to justify ... Considering the discussion above, the assessee, in our opinion has not been able to demonstrate and prove the bonafides of his claim for “reasonable cause’ behind the delay in filing of first appeal. Accordingly, we confirm the action of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the assessee’s appeal