← 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

Karma Ecotech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Cirle 13(1), New Dlhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7431/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80I

fact while not condoning the delay of only 18 days in filing the Form 10CCB as the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing the Form on or before time. 4. That all the grounds of appeal raise herein above are independent ground and without prejudice to each

Nazim Riazuddin Saiyed, Turquoise Nyati Empire Kharadi Pune vs. Assessing Officer Ward 4(4), Pmt Building, Swargate, Pune

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

ITA 287/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Nazim Riazuddin Saiyed, Vs. Assessing Officer, 301, Turquoise Nyati Empire, Ward-4(4), Pune Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Maharashtra Pan : Aqzps0676B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

assessee before ld.CIT(A) giving the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of the reasons, I find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. I find that delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) is not intentional

Subhash Baburao Aher, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nashik

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

ITA 240/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.240 & 231 /Pun/2026 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subhash Baburao Aher, Vs. Income Tax Officer Type A-01 Deepraj Row House, Ward 3(1), Nashik Untwadi Cidco, Nashik-422009 Pan: Aavpa6171D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: CA Abhilasha Pawar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 133ASection 147Section 270ASection 80CSection 80G

required supporting documents.” 6. On due consideration of the above peculiar facts and the reasons giving rise to delay, I find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee could not filed the appeal within the stipulated time. Placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ... denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and Grounds

Subhash Baburao Aher, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nashik

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

ITA 231/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.240 & 231 /Pun/2026 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subhash Baburao Aher, Vs. Income Tax Officer Type A-01 Deepraj Row House, Ward 3(1), Nashik Untwadi Cidco, Nashik-422009 Pan: Aavpa6171D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: CA Abhilasha Pawar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 133ASection 147Section 270ASection 80CSection 80G

required supporting documents.” 6. On due consideration of the above peculiar facts and the reasons giving rise to delay, I find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee could not filed the appeal within the stipulated time. Placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ... denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and Grounds

Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dhule

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

ITA 194/PUN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.194/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Milind Ward-1, Dhule Vishwas Gajmal, Plot No.40, Vishwasindhu Sneh Nagar, Station Road, Opp. Khandal Vipra Bhavan, Dhule – 424 001, Maharashtra Pan : Ablps6973N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 143Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

/NFAC. Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings, legal heir should remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside

Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah Path Sansta Mary., Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 192/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pathsansta Mary Ward-1(1), Kolhapur Kodoli, At Post Kodoli, Tal. Panhala, Kolhapur-416114 Maharashtra Pan : Aabat4234H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A) and should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5 Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah. Pathsansta Mary 8. In the result

Susmita Sudhakar Ukarde, Chiplun vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 3118/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3118/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Susmita Sudhakar Ukarde, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Z P Primary School, Ward Ratnagiri Pilawali, Vanagewadi, Jail Road, Ratnagiri Kalambat, Ratnagiri-415605 Maharashtra Pan : Aajpu4746Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anup ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 147

assessee to use email and lack of awareness of other mode of technology as he resides in rural part of Kondan region. Considering the ‘reasonable cause’ and placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji ... substantiating the cash deposits. 3 Susmita Sudhakar Ukarde Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. For remaining grounds, in absence

Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ravtale Chiplu, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 2784/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2784/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ward-1, Ratnagiri Ravtale Chiplu, Burumtali Chiplun, Ratnagiri – 415605, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra Pan : Aadas7630J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 69A

remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside

Chanda Shamkant Khaire, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2739/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2739/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Chanda Shamkant Khaire, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/18, Yashodhan Soc., Ward-5(1), Pune Chintamani Nagar, Bibwewadi, Pune 411037 Maharashtra Pan : Alnpk5242Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 147Section 54

vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.JAO and should refrain from taking adjournments 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

Konda Seenivasaiyer Damodharan Kishori Lal, Madurai vs. DCIT, Ncc-2, Madurai

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

ITA 3873/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

taxmann.com 1125 (Chennai Trib.) dated 23.06.2023 (ITA No.49 to 53/Chny/2023). 6. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee has not shown the reasonable cause for delay in filing the Tax audit report u/s.44AB of the Act beyond the due date and hence prayed for confirming the order ... proper communication/knowledge of the penalty order. It is a settled principle of law that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, and when reasonable cause is shown, delay deserves to be condoned. In this regard, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has not examined the explanation of the assessee

Selvaraj Manoharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3794/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.3793 & 3794/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Selvaraj Manoharan, The Income Tax Officer, No.96 A V V Koil Street, Vs. Non-Corp Circle-7(1), Thiruvalleswarar Nagar, Chennai. Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan:Agkpm-7433-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 40Section 44A

perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeals within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeals

Selvaraj Manoharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3793/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.3793 & 3794/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Selvaraj Manoharan, The Income Tax Officer, No.96 A V V Koil Street, Vs. Non-Corp Circle-7(1), Thiruvalleswarar Nagar, Chennai. Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan:Agkpm-7433-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 40Section 44A

perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeals within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeals

Thiruviam Vivekanandan, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-5, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1576/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.:1576/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thiruviam Vivekanandan, Ito, 364, A/1, 5Th Middle Street, Vs. Ward -5, Thiagaraja Nagar, Cuddalore. Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli – 627 011. [Pan:Adjpv-4168-J) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing to both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal

Ansari Pakkidakala, Belthangady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 146/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249Section 264Section 44ASection 69A

after referring to various case laws held that the delay in filing the appeal may be condone if there is sufficient and reasonable cause. However, the assessee in the present case did not adduce any reasonable cause which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the time. Hence

Kandivali Dattani Gram No.3 Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd, Kandivali West vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 534/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2014-15 Kandivali Dattani Gram No.3 Income Tax Officer-42(1)(3), Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan, Hemu Kalani Cross Road No.3, Vs. G Block, Kandivali West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400067. Bandra East, Pan : Arkps1535K Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Karan VakhariaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

same and the delay was not condoned and there is no finding on merits of the case. It was submitted that there is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and in the interest of substantial justice, the delay may be condoned

Kamini Velmurugan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 478/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamini Velmurugan, Income Tax Officer, 18/369, Rajeshwari Chs, Ward-42(2)(3), Subhasnagar, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Agzpn9256A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Sailee Gujarathi For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 19-11-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt. 12-12-2023, Wherein The Ao Has Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs. 42,50,000/- As Short Term Capital Gains U/S. 45 Of The Act In Absence Of Any Explanation/Evidences Submitted By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Immoveable Property As Well As Cost Of Acquisition. The 2 Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Delayed Filing & Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Ms. Sailee GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 45Section 45(1)

lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Firstly, we find that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee have not been rebutted

Sanjay Shamrao Sawant, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 469/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Sanjay Shamrao Sawant, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. B-3/701, 7Th Floor, Ward-35(3)(1), [Presently – Ito, Ward-42(3)(3)] Millenium Towers, Vs. Mumbai. Near Ryan School, Sector-9, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan : Bdyps3261H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Kochi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-09-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Was Any Adjournment Application Filed. However, Considering The Matter, We Find That No Useful Purpose Would Be Served In Adjourning The Matter Any Further & To Decide The Matter Based On Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

pointed out by the Registry. After pursuing the affidavit submitted by the assessee and hearing the ld DR, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal and hence, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Briefly, the facts

Satyabrata Panda, Ganjam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Berhampur

ITA 473/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Satyabrata Panda Ito, Ward-1, Berhampur Vs Banglow Street, Khallikote, Ganjanm, Odisha-761030. (Pan: Aszpp1645H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271BSection 271DSection 273B

that the penalty proceedings has been initiated without jurisdiction does not hold water and, thus, this contention is dismissed. 8. With regard to reasonable cause, from the records, we find that the assessee since inception of the proceedings before the AO has submitted that the payment was received in cash ... making payment of the debts taken at the time of marriage of her daughter, which is a bonafide reason and duly covered under reasonable cause u/s.273B of the Act. It is further seen that the transaction has been disclosed, therefore, there was no loss to the revenue. With regard

Satyaraj Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6539/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 144Section 69A

family and to visit his native place due to which the delay occurred. The assessee thus prayed for condonation of delay by submitting the reasonable cause by way of an affidavit filed through its Chairman. 4.1. The Ld.AR has submitted that, both the authorities below have not got opportunity

Gopalkrishna Narla Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6488/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgopalkrishna Narla Rao, Income Tax Officer, A/12/46 Sunder Nagar Kalina, Ward 16(2)(4), Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400098 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpr 1916R Appellant By : Shri M Subramnian Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2026

For Appellant: Shri M SubramnianFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

days. 3. Having considered the submissions of the assessee, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a practicing