← 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

Dixitkumar Bhikhalal Morkhiya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 793/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Dismissed The Appeal For Non-Prosecution.

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 69A

have perused the materials available on record as well as the Affidavit and Written Submissions filed by the assessee. We find that a reasonable cause for filing the appeal with a delay of 24 days, hence the same is hereby condoned. Since the assessee has filed all relevant documents before

Ahmednagar Auto and Engineering Association, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2010/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37Section 68

action of the CIT(A) was against the settled principles of justice. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was a reasonable cause due to which the assessee company was not able to make proper compliances before the A.O. in the course of assessment proceedings ... parte asst. order u/s 144 by rejecting all evidences 4 4. Without prejudice to the above ground, the appellant submits that there was a reasonable cause due to which the notices issued by the A.O. could not be complied with by the appellant which resulted into the assessment order being

Shri Abhijit Uttamrao Deshmukh, Beed vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1372/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1372/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Abhijit Uttamrao Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Deshmukh, Aurangabad. Vithal Niwas, Ganesh Par Road, Parli Vaijanath, Beed, Beed- 431515. Pan : Agwpd1032B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dr. Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Reasons Causing Delay & Without Appreciating That The Assessee Being Chairman Of The Maharashtra Shetkari Sugar Mills Was Facing Multiple Litigations Relating To Financial Problems Of The Said Organization Which Was The Main Cause Of Delay, Apart From Others, In Filing Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 144Section 147Section 148

raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal without considering the reasons causing delay and without appreciating that the assessee being chairman of the Maharashtra Shetkari Sugar Mills was facing multiple litigations relating to financial problems ... /NFAC without condoning the delay is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not submitting the appeal within the time limit prescribed under the IT Act. It was submitted that the assessee was facing various civil cases pending in various

Patna Bakhtiyarpur Tollway Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 182/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Patna Bakhtiyarpur Tollway Vs. Acit Circle-16(2) Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Aafcp9577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Ar Revenue By: Ms.K.Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 31.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms.K.Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

appeal is not required to be condoned. 5. We have heard both the parties, gone through the affidavit filed and find there is a reasonable cause for the assessee to file the appeal belatedly, hence condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice

M/S. Manali Properties & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2137/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 5

case before the Ld. CIT(A) as the delay was not intentional rather bonafide. The Ld. Counsel filed an Affidavit to establish the reasonable cause for delay. 5. Contrary to that the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. 6. On perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it appears ... that the appeal of the assessee have been dismissed on account delay as the Ld. CIT(A), did not find there sufficient and reasonable cause. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the assessee before us which is as follows: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 2136 & 2137/Kol/2024 Assessment Year

M/S. Manali Properties & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2136/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 5

case before the Ld. CIT(A) as the delay was not intentional rather bonafide. The Ld. Counsel filed an Affidavit to establish the reasonable cause for delay. 5. Contrary to that the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. 6. On perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it appears ... that the appeal of the assessee have been dismissed on account delay as the Ld. CIT(A), did not find there sufficient and reasonable cause. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the assessee before us which is as follows: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 2136 & 2137/Kol/2024 Assessment Year

Kaydee Foundation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1774/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 11Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154

filed Form 10B. The Court held that the error on the part of auditor cannot be rejected but should be accepted as a reasonable cause shown by the trust management. In that case also, Petitioner did not suo moto realize its mistake and filed a condonation request only after Centralised

Sri Ayyappaswamy Sannidhanachari Table Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 1898/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri B.S. Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

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 filing the appeal. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras ... case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion

Ranvijay Haldhar Singh, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appealate Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5430/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Tejas Sodha, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)

Tribunal. 2.4. The Ld. DR did not raise any objections to the submissions of the assessee. 2.5. It is noted that there is a reasonable cause made out by the Ld.AR, in the delay caused in filing present appeal before this Tribunal. Considering the submissions of both sides delay

Sea Face Park Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre

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

ITA 5417/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22 Sea Face Park Co. Ito Ward 19(3)(1) Operative Housing Piramal Chambers Society Limited Mumbai- 400012. 50, Bhulabhai Desai Vs. Road, Maharashtra- 400026. Pan: Aaaas3577R Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 4. It is noted that, there is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) as the assessee was trying to resolve the issue with the CPC. From the affidavit ... intention on behalf of assessee for not filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. 4.1. In our view, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that is caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish any contrary intention is filed

Bahadur Singh, Zirakpur Punjab vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department Delhi

In the result, the matter is set-aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee

ITA 577/CHANDI/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Spandeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR (Virtual)
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

objection. After hearing both the parties and considering the condonation application as well as the affidavit placed on record, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delayed filing of appeal and the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly

Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Atpadi, Atpadi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Sangli, Pne, W, Pune

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

ITA 2139/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2139/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Society Limited, Koshti Galli, Atpadi, Sangli- 415301. Pan : Aafaa0908H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, Neither Anybody Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application For Adjournment Was Filed Despite Due Service Of Notice Of Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. D. Kulkarni
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

furnished before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we are fully satisfied with the contention of the assessee co-operative society that there was proper and reasonable cause for not filing the first appeal within the time limit prescribed under the statute, before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly, in our considered

Rishi Khare, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 827/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.827/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Rishi Khare Vs. Ito, Ward-12(6) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Amjpk4465G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 45 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Informed Of The Issuance Of The Order Dated 13.05.2024 By The Ld.Cit(A) & He Was Under The Genuine Belief That The Matter

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

opposing the petition filed by the assessee submitted that the reason given by the assessee is vague in nature and does not come under reasonable cause for condoning the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned ... case of Muralikrishna Vaddi(supra) is concerned, we find there is a delay of more than two years without any valid and reasonable cause. Therefore, the said decision in our opinion cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case. In any case, when there are two view possible

Elumalai Sumathi, Bapatla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1165/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1165/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Elumalai Sumathi Vs. Income Tax Officer Bapatla Ward-1 [Pan :Abipe4083C] Ongole (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri U.Mini Chandran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.36,60,000 As Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act After Having Admitted The Additional Evidence Filed By The Assessee Under Rule 46A. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: : Shri U.Mini Chandran, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69

assessee could file appeal before the Tribunal on 07.11.2024 with the delay of 07 days. We find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee to file the appeal belatedly, therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 5. The brief

Buradagunta Rajini, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1147/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SPG Mudaliar, SR-DR
Section 271(1)(b)

days due COVID-19 Pandemic and technical glitches faced by the assessee in filing the appeal. Therefore in our opinion there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee behind the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this appeal deserve to be heard

Buradagunta Rajini, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1146/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SPG Mudaliar, SR-DR
Section 271(1)(b)

days due COVID-19 Pandemic and technical glitches faced by the assessee in filing the appeal. Therefore in our opinion there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee behind the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this appeal deserve to be heard

Buradagunta Rajini, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1145/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SPG Mudaliar, SR-DR
Section 271(1)(b)

days due COVID-19 Pandemic and technical glitches faced by the assessee in filing the appeal. Therefore in our opinion there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee behind the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this appeal deserve to be heard

Loveen Babu Vuppala, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee in limine, even though the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay, which comes under reasonable cause. Therefore, she submitted the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal should be decided on merits ... foreign tax credit on the application filed by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act is bonafide and reasonable and further, it comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay. Therefore, in our considered view, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay

R. Neelima Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 45

assessee due to her illness, for which she had furnished the medical certificate. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there was reasonable cause behind the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Number 2147 Thamallackal, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 729/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

rival submissions and perusal of the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from putting in appearance before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice the matter is remanded back