← 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

Subramaniam Saravanakumar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Ncc-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2953/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2953/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Subramaniam Saravanakumar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 188, Sukrawarpet Street, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 001. Non Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore. [Pan:Accps5345Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised 14 Grounds In His Appeal & Mainly Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Without Condoning Delay In Filing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

days in filing the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by rejecting the condonation petition on the ground that there was no reasonable cause and for not accompanied by an affidavit for the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate drew

Sanjay Ramnathan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 26(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 605/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2011-12 Sanjay Ramnathan, Dcit, Circle-26(1), 401, Bldg. No.13, Kautilya Bhavan, Indra Darshan Phase Ii, Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Oshiwara, Mumbai-400 053. Pan :Aacpr7701B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 144Section 148

explained above said reasons and requested the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay. However, the Ld.CIT(A) took the view that there was no reasonable cause for condoning the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the impugned addition made ... belief that no action shall be taken by the Income tax department in the hands of non-resident. Accordingly, he submitted that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) in time. Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed that the delay in filing appeal before

Komar Bedu Gouda, Karwar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 267/PAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.267/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Komar Bedu Gouda, Vs National Faceless At Balerashi,Po.Amadalli, Assessment Centre, . Karwar-581301, Delhi- Uttara Kannada, . Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aoopg3843F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144

Gouda.. the assesse in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with the reasonable cause. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions by the A.O and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance ... facts, provisions and the contents of the application dealt at Para 5 of the CIT(A) order, we found that there is a reasonable cause explained and there is no benefit is derived in causing delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Sarthak Memorial Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exmeption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1211/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudharym AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission, you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 23 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(E), Jaipur, so that proper inquiry can be conducted

Sarthak Memorial Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1210/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudharym AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission, you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 23 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(E), Jaipur, so that proper inquiry can be conducted

Sarthak Memorial Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1209/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudharym AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission, you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 23 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(E), Jaipur, so that proper inquiry can be conducted

Sarthak Memorial Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1208/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudharym AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission, you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 23 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(E), Jaipur, so that proper inquiry can be conducted

Bhavan Ravat, Raebareli vs. Assessing Authority NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 8/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavan Ravat Assessing Authority V. Vill. Rampur Sudauli, Nfac Raebareli-229301. Delhi Pan:Ajwpr1755Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 5

order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, hot acknowledging that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time. The delay was not due to dilatory tactics, lack of bona fide, deliberate inaction, or negligence on the part

Nihal Industries Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1488/AHD/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1488/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nihal Industries Private The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Limited Ward-3(1)(1) V/S. 1961, Above Royal Cycle Ahmedabad Inside Panchkuwa Panchkuwa Ahmedabad – 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcn 7129 D (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arjav D. Vidani, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.06.2024, Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjav D. Vidani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

therefore, the assessee's plea of non-receipt was not acceptable. The CIT(A) further held that the assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause for non- compliance. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal ... portal, the claim of the assessee regarding non-receipt of notices is not entirely convincing. Therefore, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated reasonable cause for non-compliance with the statutory notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year

Abdul Gaffar Suleman Chhapra, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 5398/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 50CSection 54

Kokilaben Hospital, Mumbai in March 2018 due to certain medical exigencies and was undergoing treatment.We are of the considered view that there was a reasonable cause for the delay. We, therefore condone the delay. 4.1 Since the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay, he failed

Sahrdaya Tbii Hub, Irinjalakuda vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Ernakulam

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

ITA 647/COCH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

vigilant and file necessary documents, if considered necessary, in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take adjournment, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. In case after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, there is no compliance by the assessee, then ld. CIT (Exemption) can pass a speaking

Sahrdaya Educational Trust, Irinjalakuda vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Ernakulam

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

ITA 646/COCH/2024[2024-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2024-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar P J
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

vigilant and file necessary documents, if considered necessary, in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take adjournment, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. In case after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, there is no compliance by the assessee, then ld. CIT (Exemption) can pass a speaking

Income Tax Officer, Indore vs. Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Tillor Khurad, Indore

ITA 327/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 269TSection 271E

Lokhpal Film Exchange (Cinema) reported in (2003) 304 ITR 172 (Raj.) and further has erroneously concluded that assessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the Page 7 of 20 Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. 327/Ind/2024 - AY 2015-16 contravention. The Ld. DR pointed out that in Rajasthan High Court

Ravi Kant Sharma, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (3), Bareilly

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

ITA 62/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Kant Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 45, Athayen Faridpur Bareilly Athana Bareilly Tan/Pan:Bcfps0514M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

unjustifiably initiated under section 271AAC of the Act. 9. BECAUSE on a due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, there was reasonable cause for failure on the part of the "appellant" to comply to notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act and consequently

Athletic Studio Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 56/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Athletic Studio V. The Dcit/Acit-1 Private Limited Lucknow 11-Cp/2, Ring Road Vikas Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aalca7841H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

action of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That CIT (A), NFAC failed to appreciate that there was a reasonable cause being medical reason for non-compliance of the Notices issued during Appellate Proceeding through e- ITA No.56/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 6 filing portal, hence

Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 692/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 48

accepted the impugned order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the IT Act & subsequently changed his mind & filed the appeal belatedly without any reasonable cause. Regarding the shelter due to the death of his brother we find that the impugned order was passed on 31-03-2021 & the extended ... Courts are well equipped with power to condone the delay, if the petitioner explains the delay in filing of the appeal with a reasonable cause. However, there is no law or mandate in the Act, to condone the delay in each and every case. But, it depends upon all facts

Koteswara Rao Malleboyina, Andhra Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ongole

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

ITA 202/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Jyothisri Vankina, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

After hearing the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) and pursuing the reason submitted by the assessee, we are of the opinion that there was reasonable cause behind the delay in filing of the appeal before ITAT. Therefore, we do condone the delay of 8 days and admit the appeal

Roomle Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1654/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.1654/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Roomle Das……………………....…………...………......................……….……Appellant 4, East Belgharia 1St Lane, Belgharia, Kolkata – 700083. [Pan: Bfzpd1491R] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(4), Kolkata..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. J. Bhide, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Against The Order Dated 18.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Case Of The Assessee Could Not Be Represented Before The Assessing Officer Due To Certain Reasons Which Were Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & Therefore, The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Vide Order Dated 24.12.2019. The Ld. Counsel Further Submitted That Even The Penalty Was Imposed By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2021 Which Was Deleted By The Tribunal On The Ground That There Was Sufficient Cause For Non- Compliance To The Said Notice As The Reasons Were Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. The Ld. Ar Further Submitted That Before The Ld. Cit(A), The

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)

even the Tribunal has passed an order in ITA No.389/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2017-08 dated 14.05.2024, where, the Tribunal observed that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance to the notices and the penalty was deleted as imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271A

Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Kangeyam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3112/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3110, 3111 & 3112/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Anna Cell Com, V. Ward -1(4), 255, R.M. Tower Main Road, Tirupur. Kangeyam – 638 701. [Pan: Adhpv-7648-F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

raised by the assessee: a) The penalty order is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. b) The appellant had reasonable cause u/s.273B for non- compliance. c) Erroneous interpretation of law in levying separate penalties for multiple notices. d) The penalty is disproportionate and fails to consider ... both the parties, we find that the assessee was suffering from injury in right ankle and could not move and hence 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

Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Kangeyam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3111/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3110, 3111 & 3112/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Anna Cell Com, V. Ward -1(4), 255, R.M. Tower Main Road, Tirupur. Kangeyam – 638 701. [Pan: Adhpv-7648-F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

raised by the assessee: a) The penalty order is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. b) The appellant had reasonable cause u/s.273B for non- compliance. c) Erroneous interpretation of law in levying separate penalties for multiple notices. d) The penalty is disproportionate and fails to consider ... both the parties, we find that the assessee was suffering from injury in right ankle and could not move and hence 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