← 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

Subhash Pareta, Kota Rajasthan vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

19. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), upholding the penalty order is hereby set aside

ITA 90/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

loans and advances and their repayment, both in cash, leading to violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act, without any reasonable cause. 3 Subhash Pareta, Kota. As further pointed out by Ld. AR, order of remand came to be passed when the Appellate Tribunal observed that

Subhash Pareta, Kota Rajasthan vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

19. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), upholding the penalty order is hereby set aside

ITA 89/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E

loans and advances and their repayment, both in cash, leading to violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act, without any reasonable cause. 3 Subhash Pareta, Kota. As further pointed out by Ld. AR, order of remand came to be passed when the Appellate Tribunal observed that

Subhash Pareta, Kota Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed

ITA 88/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit (A) Certain Additional

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E

loans and advances and their repayment, both in cash, leading to violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act, without any reasonable cause. Thereupon, the assessee produced before the CIT (A) certain additional evidence, and he called for remand report in respect thereof, but the Assessing Authority

Subhash Pareta, Kota Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed

ITA 83/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) Certain Additional

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

loans and advances and their repayment, both in cash, leading to violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act, without any reasonable cause. Thereupon, the assessee produced before the CIT(A) certain additional evidence, and he called for remand report in respect thereof, but the Assessing Authority

Subhash Pareta, Kota Rajasthan vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

19. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), upholding the penalty order is hereby set aside

ITA 105/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E

loans and advances and their repayment, both in cash, leading to violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act, without any reasonable cause. 3 Subhash Pareta, Kota. As further pointed out by Ld. AR, order of remand came to be passed when the Appellate Tribunal observed that

Mystic Bamboo Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 238/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.237&238/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: Na Vs Cit Mystic Bamboo Foundation, Plot 88/1/1, Flat No. 201, Exemption, Veerbhadra Nagar, Baner- Pune 411045 Maharashtra Pan-Aaqcm8899L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT
Section 12ASection 8Section 80G(5)

opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also requested to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised in both the appeals i.e. ITA No.237&238/PUN/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, both

Mystic Bamboo Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 237/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.237&238/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: Na Vs Cit Mystic Bamboo Foundation, Plot 88/1/1, Flat No. 201, Exemption, Veerbhadra Nagar, Baner- Pune 411045 Maharashtra Pan-Aaqcm8899L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT
Section 12ASection 8Section 80G(5)

opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also requested to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised in both the appeals i.e. ITA No.237&238/PUN/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, both

Fatimabai Hajimiya Kokani Pvt Trust., Nashik vs. ITO (Exep) Ward 1, Nashik

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

ITA 2373/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2373/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5

ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra), we are of the view that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 107 days and admit the appeal ... delay of 9 years is a huge delay for adjudicating the appeal by the Id. CIT(A). But the assessee also submitted the "reasonable cause" for filing the appeal in delay. In fact, the revenue also not able to submit proof for any other mode of service of intimation

Kolhapur Zilha Vankhate Karmachari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1945/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs Ito Ward Kolhapur Zilha Vankhate Karmachari Sahakari Path 2(1), Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur Basement No. B5 Geet Govind Residency, Nr Geeta Mandir Kawala Naka, Kolhapur-416003 Maharashtra Pan-Aadak8661R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

also update latest e-mail id and contact details on the income tax portal and refrain from taking 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

Muthuswamy Muruganandham, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvallur

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

ITA 397/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 397/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muthuswamy Muruganandham, Income Tax Officer, 09-B, Variyar Nagar, Vs. Ward -1, Karthiekeyapuram Road, Tiruvallur. Tiruttani, Tiruvallur – 631 209. [Pan:Aropm-8711-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N.Vijay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

After considering the Affidavit 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, we condone delay

Kandasamy Govindaraj, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

appeals by the assessee. After considering the Affidavits 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

Kandasamy Govindaraj, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 364/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

appeals by the assessee. After considering the Affidavits 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

Kannan Aravindhan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-2(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 3039/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3039/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kannan Aravindhan, Ito, No.16/15, Raja Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -2(1), Ganapathy Coimbatore – 641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan:Bozpa-0750-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

appeal by the assessee. After considering the Affidavit 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

Om Siddhi Vijay Mandal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1798/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1798/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :N.A.) Om Siddhi Vijay Mandal 9/162, Khimji Nagji Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W.), Mumbai-400013 V/S. Cit(Exemption), Mumbai बनाम Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaato5189J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Neha Paranjpe राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [Α.Μ.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai-/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 29.12.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 12ASection 250

appeal before the due date. In view of the explanation submitted by the assessee, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for the delay of 18 days, which is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application for registration

Sudesh Ramchandra Kasar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6878/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6878/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Sudesh Ramchandra Kasar V/S. Ito – 42(1)(5) Room No. 04, M H Chawl, बिधम Room No. 734, 7Th Floor, Hanuman Tekadi Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Kajupada, Borivali (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aigpk2873B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 148Section 250Section 68

against his employer for the fraudulent use of his bank account on account of which the filing of the appeal was delayed. Considering the reasonable cause explained by the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

The District Magistrate, Badaun vs. ITO (TDS), Moradabad

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

ITA 4775/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year : 2010-11 The District Magistrate, Badaun, Vs. Ito (Tds), Collectorate Compound, Badaun, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh – 243601 Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001 (Pan: Lknd0606E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.01.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Moradabad. 2. In This Case, Order Dated 31.03.2017 Was Passed U/S. 206C(6A) Of The Act By The Ito-Tds, Moradabad For The Assessment Year 2010-11 By Imposing The Total Tax Liability Of Rs. 8,13,688/- & Assessed The Income On The Same Amount. In Appeal, There Is A Delay Of 350 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Ld. Cit(A) Noted The Following Submission Of The Assessee:- “There Was A Delay Of 350 Days & It Was Due To The Fact That Order Was Served On D.M. Office & Which Was Not Conveyed To Mining Officer Mr. Narender Kumar. It Came To His Knowledge In September, 2017 & Due To The Fact That The Time Was Consumed In Empanelment & Appointment Of Counsel. That Further The Delay Was Due To The Procedure Of Online Registration For Filing Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 206C

hence, we are proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 6. Upon careful consideration, we find that reasonable cause has been attributed by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal, which has occurred due to communication gap and time taken

The Nadapuram Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Kozhikode vs. JCIT, Range 2, Kozhikode

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

ITA 957/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274

provisions of section 269SS of the Act have no application and further contended that there was 3 ITA No.957/Coch/2024. The Nadapuram SC.B Limited. reasonable cause for accepting the deposits in cash from the members, and therefore, no penalty can be levied in view of the decision ... case of Vasan Healthcare Private Limited 103 taxman 26 (Mad.) and other judgments of High Courts held that in the absence of any reasonable cause for accepting the deposits or loans in cash, the levy of penalty is justified u/s.271D of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order

Fat East Trading Establishment, Kayamkulam vs. ITO, Ward No.1, Alappuzha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 817/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sreejith R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

obtaining audit reports from statutory auditors under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 4 Far East Trading Establishment and Rules could be seen as a reasonable cause for delayed submission of audit reports, no penalty under section 271B was to be imposed on assessee.” 8. The facts of the case

K.K Builders, Kannur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Calicut.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 759/COCH/2023[AY 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69C

appeal before this Tribunal in time. In this circumstance, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant had not made out sufficient reasonable cause for filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, it is not a fit case for condoning the delay. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay

M/S Elias & Co, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 613/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Elias & Co. .......... Appellant Basin Road, Ernakulam, Kochi 682031 [Pan: Aaafe5469M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward - 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40A

admitted for adjudication. On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused