← 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

Maharashtra Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal Karmachari Sah Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Pune

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

ITA 397/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.397 & 398/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Maharashtra Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Karmachari Sah Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune Balbharati, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune – 411004 Pan : Aaaam2009A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

providing fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, both the appeals

Pankaj Balasaheb Joshi, Beed vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Aurangabad

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

ITA 378/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.378/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pankaj Balasaheb Joshi, Vs. Assessment Unit, 1710 Ganesh Nagar, Gevarai Income Tax Department Post, Beed – 431127 Pan : Anzpj3599D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jai BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69A

opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for 3 reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Innovative Environmental Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 349/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.349/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Innovative Environmental Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Technologies Private Limited, Pune 207 Siddharth Towers, Near Karishma Society, Kothrud, Pune-411038 Pan : Aaac19583M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(1)

hearing shall be granted to the assessee. The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Prasad Prabhakar Khandke, Pune vs. ITO, Ward5(2), Pune

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

ITA 335/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Prasad Prabhakar Khandke, Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Flat No. 10, 3Rd Floor, Pune Manmohan Apart, S. No. 13, Sukhsagar Nagar, Katraj, Pune-411046 Pan : Alkpk5278P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and also considering that the assessee would not have gained by not attending the hearing and some genuine and reasonable cause would have restrained the assessee to attend the hearing, we therefore, without dwelling into merits of the case raised in the grounds of appeal ... hearing shall be granted to the assessee. The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Central Bank of India Employees Co Op Credit Society Ltd Kolhapur, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 334/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Central Bank Of India Employees Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Kolhapur Laxmipuri Branch, Ford Corner, Kolhapur-416002 Pan : Aabac1552F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)

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

Ramdas Pandharinath Kale(HUF), Pune vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Pune

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

ITA 246/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramdas Pandharinath Kale V The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), S Ward-12(3), Pune. Wagjholi, Kalewasti, Kasanand Road, Haveli, Pune – 412207. Pan: Aaqhr7916A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 19.10.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Each Ground Is Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

before us that the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is unjustified. LD AR submitted before the bench that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed under statute. In this regard, he further submitted before the Bench that the procedure

Sujit Kantilal Rathod, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 2520/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2520/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sujit Kantilal Rathod, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, At Post Peth Vadgaon, Ichalkaranni Hatkanangale, Kolhapur416112 Pan : Aaupr5961M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 250(6)Section 69A

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Vikas Raosaheb Powar, Shirol, Maharashtra vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2127/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2127/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vikas Raosaheb Powar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Powar Doodh Dairy Terwad, Ichalkaranji, Shirol, Kolhapur- 416106. Pan : Bcwpp6212J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 103 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Present Appeal Within Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Raised

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151(2)

application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. We are satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that he was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the present appeal within prescribed time limit. Ld. DR raised 2 no serious objection to the condonation request made by the assessee

Siddhivinayak Paper Industries, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Nashik, Income Tax Offie Nashik

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

ITA 1800/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1800/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Siddhivinayak Paper Industries, V The Income Tax Officer, 18, Vastu Vinit, Jal Bhavani S Ward-2(1), Nashik. Road, Nashik Road, Nashik. Maharashtra – 422101. Pan: Abufs6973M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 11.06.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.13,60,000/- Made By The Assessing

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

hearing to assessee and to place relevant details. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to seek adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Shri. Omkareshwar Devasthan Charitable Trust., Jalgaon vs. ITO (Exemption) - 1(2), Nashik

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

ITA 1714/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1714/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Omkareshwar Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(2), Devasthan Charitable Trust, Nashik. C/O M. V. Medicals Opp. Telephone Building, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aafts7927R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue By : Shri Chandra Vijay Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Ludhiana [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Furnished Its Return Of Income Prior To The Due Date Mentioned U/S 139 Of The It Act. However, The Audit Report In Form 10B Could Not Be Filed Along With Return Of Income But The Same Was Filed On 11-11-2017 & Therefore The Cpc In The Intimation Dated 27-03-2019

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 11Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154

earlier counsel & condone the delay since no one should be punished for the mistake of the counsel & hold that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limits before Ld. CIT (A). We also find that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

Shri Ganadhiraj Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

ITA 900/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

intimation is dated 16/05/2013 and the appeal is filed after the delay of 3760 days. There is long delay, it is without any reasonable cause and in no can be condoned. The appeal was dismissed limine being unadmitted. Further aggrieved the assessee as filed present appeal before Tribunal

Shri Ganadhiraj Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

ITA 899/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

intimation is dated 16/05/2013 and the appeal is filed after the delay of 3760 days. There is long delay, it is without any reasonable cause and in no can be condoned. The appeal was dismissed limine being unadmitted. Further aggrieved the assessee as filed present appeal before Tribunal

Shri Gandhiraj Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

ITA 898/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

intimation is dated 16/05/2013 and the appeal is filed after the delay of 3760 days. There is long delay, it is without any reasonable cause and in no can be condoned. The appeal was dismissed limine being unadmitted. Further aggrieved the assessee as filed present appeal before Tribunal

Hitesh Suresh Jadhav, Kalher, Thane vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Kalyan

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

ITA 771/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not able to file the appeals within the period of limitation. The cause for the delay therefore deserves to be considered, when there ... exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that

Dodhia Chem Tex Private Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 765/Mum/2025 is dismissed

ITA 765/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedodhia Chem Tex Private Vs Dcit-Cc-3, Thane Room No.12, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Limited, 98/2, Dodhia House New Mavji Ashar It Park, Thane (West)-400 Compound, Narpoli Behind 604 Ratan Talkies, Bhiwandi, 421 302 Pan : Aajcs0580R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Simran DhavanFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal,(CIT DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

Assessing Officer, which was never prayed in the appeal filed in Farm 35 before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and reasonable cause existed for non-compliance before the Assessing Officer. 3 Dodhia Chem Tex Private Limited 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify

Indu Bisht, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 645/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

provisions of section 273B of Income tax act which clearly states that no penalty should be levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for failure. 4. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in spite of specific request ... failed to comply the statutory notice issued u/s 142(1) on 02/11/2023 & 23/11/2023 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant has failed to submit reasonable cause which led to failure to comply notices of the Ld. AO. Therefore, the penalty of Rs.20,000/- was levied. 4.3. During the appellate proceedings

Indu Bisht, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 644/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

provisions of section 273B of Income tax act which clearly states that no penalty should be levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for failure. 4. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in spite of specific request ... failed to comply the statutory notice issued u/s 142(1) on 02/11/2023 & 23/11/2023 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant has failed to submit reasonable cause which led to failure to comply notices of the Ld. AO. Therefore, the penalty of Rs.20,000/- was levied. 4. 3. During the appellate

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Centeral Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 439/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, Maharashtra-400709 V/S. बनाम Ito Central Circle 5(2) Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices or penalty orders, vii. the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause, viii. the order passed was beyond the time permissible u/s 275, ix. passing an order dt. 04.03.2022 u/s.271(1)(c) in respect ... penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices or penalty orders, vii. the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause, viii. the order passed was beyond the time permissible u/s 275, ix. passing an order dt. 04.03.2022 u/s.271(1)(c) in respect

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 438/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, Maharashtra-400709 V/S. बनाम Ito Central Circle 5(2) Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices or penalty orders, vii. the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause, viii. the order passed was beyond the time permissible u/s 275, ix. passing an order dt. 04.03.2022 u/s.271(1)(c) in respect ... penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices or penalty orders, vii. the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause, viii. the order passed was beyond the time permissible u/s 275, ix. passing an order dt. 04.03.2022 u/s.271(1)(c) in respect

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 437/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices or penalty orders, vii. the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause, viii. the order passed was beyond the time permissible u/s 275, ix. passing an order dt. 04.03.2022 u/s.271(1)(c) in respect ... penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices or penalty orders, vii. the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause, viii. the order passed was beyond the time permissible u/s 275, ix. passing an order dt. 04.03.2022 u/s.271(1)(c) in respect