← 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

Rotary Club of Jadavpur Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(E), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1126/KOL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1126/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rotary Club Of Jadavpur Trust Commissioner Of Income Tax 6A, North Road Vs (Exemption), Kolkata Jadavpur Kolkata - 700032 [Pan : Aaatr8066R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Indra, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 28/08/2023, Rejecting The Registration Under 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That, The Sole Ground On Which The Ld. Cit(E) Has Rejected The Grant Of Registration To The Assessee Trust, Is That The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Hearing Notices Fixing The Hearings On 08/08/2023 & 22/08/2023 & Neither The Assessee File The Necessary Documents As Called For By The Ld. Cit(E). Before Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That, The Secretary Of The Assessee Trust, Who Was Entrusted Pursue The Matter Of Registration Was Down With Enteric Fever & Was On Complete Bed Rest On The Advise Of The Attending Physician. Therefore, He Could Not Access

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Indra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

position and did not oppose to this contention of the assessee. 3. We have heard rival contentions and find that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not complying before the ld. CIT(E), which he has explained before this Tribunal. Under these given facts and circumstances, we deem

M/S Blessing Agro Farm India Limited, Madurai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1, Madurai

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

ITA 1504/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Blessing Agro Farm India The Income Tax Officer, Limited, V. Corporate Ward -1, 1E, 1K, Ss Colony, Madurai. Madurai, Tamil Nadu – 625 010. [Pan: Aadcb-6709-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

filed by the assessee submitted that, the reasons given by the assessee for non-filing of appeal within prescribed limit does not come under reasonable cause and thus, the appeal filed by the assessee should not be admitted. :-3-: ITA. No: 1504/Chny/2023 4. We have heard both the parties

Natarajan Priya, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1246/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

Relevant order sheet is reproduced at assessment :- 5 -: order at page 4. Even otherwise, it is inordinate delay and assessee could not produce any reasonable cause rather illness of assessee’s husband which does not stand because of time lag. Assessee’s husband was no doubt was ill from

Rajesh Agarwal, Vidhyadhara Nagar Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer WD 4(1), ITO Jaipur

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

ITA 22/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara (Adv.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 68Section 69C

there was a delay in filing of appeal, the appellant has not made any request for condonation of delay nor hatt he submitted any reasonable cause for such inordinate delay in filing of appeal, In absence of any bonafide cause or reason cited by the appellant, the appeal

Free India Broking Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangaluru, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3553/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalfree India Broking Vs. Acit, Cpc Services Pvt Ltd, Incometaxdepartment, 108, Prime Plaza, Electronic City, Jv Patel Compound, Post Office, Elphistone (W), Bangalore -560100. Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf5729Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Subodh Ratnaparkhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

dealt on facts at Para 5.2 of the order and came to a conclusion that the assessee has not explained the reasonable cause for the delay. Whereas the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee became aware of the order u/sec143(1) of the Act only when the recovery notice dated ... order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the application explaining the reasonable cause on the delay as discussed and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with the law. The assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing

Rupinder Kaur, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2002/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyarupinder Kaur, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 30, R-675, 1St Floor, New Delhi. New Rajinder Nagar, Central Delhi, New Delhi – 110 060. (Pan : Aaspk0367J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Order : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 114 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. For the reasonable cause for filing the delayed appeal, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT (A) has passed the penalty order with the direction that the decision

The Balduhak Co-Operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., Hamirpur vs. ITO, Ward, Hamirpur

ITA 703/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Us Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative

For Appellant: Shri Alok Krishan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

pointed out by the Registry. After hearing both the parties and pursuing the affidavit filed by the assessee society, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay and the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. In the present appeal, the assessee

DCIT CC 8(2), Mumbai vs. White Feather Films Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7651/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

view to evade tax and the transactions were malafide. The Ld. CIT(A) found force in the contention of assessee that there was reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, he noted that the loans were taken

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. White Feather Films Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7642/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7651/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Dcit, Central, Circle-8(2) बिधम/ M/S. White Feather Films 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Svp Nagar, Mhada Road, Mumbai-400020. Bungalow No. 91, Four Bungalow, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw4428R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal A/W M/S. Neha Paranjpe Revenue By: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai Dated 20.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed By Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ao) U/S 271E/271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

view to evade tax and the transactions were malafide. The Ld. CIT(A) found force in the contention of assessee that there was reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, he noted that the loans were taken ... relying on the ratio of Hon’ble High Court in M/s. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd (supra) was of the view that there was reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty for contravention of section 269SS u/s 271D of the Act and directed deletion of Rs.1.43 cr. 6. Similarly

Chintan Bharatbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 678/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 678/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69

Triumph International Finance India Limited vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1870/ Mum/ 2020 for A.Y. 2017-2018, where it has been held that when sufficient reasonable cause for not responding to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act has been shown by the appellant, the penalty under Section ... employees of the assessee failed to take not of the notice issued electronically. We are satisfied that the assessee has been able to show reasonable cause for not responding to the initial notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that subsequently

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Kamatwade vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 893/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.893/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of Rs.82,093/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law. Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271

appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it". It means, if the appellant is not pursuing the appeal without any reasonable cause, it may be presumed that he may not be interest in taking the issue seriously before the appellate authority or he may not be able

M/S Mercantile Ventures Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.623/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Mercantile Ventures Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of- No.88, Spic House, Income Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle-4(1), Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm 6095 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri P.V.Sudhakar, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Section 263Section 53Section 53(1)Section 53(2)Section 53(3)

considered view that reasons given by assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted

Ramappa Laxman Naduvin, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Belagavi

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

ITA 36/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramappa Laxman Naduvin Kadabi, Saundatti Belgaum 591129 Ito Vs. Karnataka Ward-5 Belagavi Pan No.Ajspr3237R Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 234ASection 250Section 69A

assessment year 2Oi7-i8on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in making submissions, on the facts and circumstances of the case. Ramappa Laxman Naduvin, Belgaum Page 2 of 4 4. Grounds on merits ... days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. There exists reasonable cause in filing the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 67 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 67 days and admit

Pramod Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward -2(3)(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2018/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act for accepting cash loan of Rs. 2 lakh in aggregate without any reasonable cause in contravention to section 269SS. He referred the matter to the Ld. Addl. CIT Bulandsahar who served show cause notice upon the assessee to which he submitted ... loan if it did not exceed Rs. 20,000/- 6. on a given date particularly from a family member. In other words, there was reasonable cause for accepting cash loan and therefore, the proceeding deserves to be dropped. Several decisions were relied upon in support. 6. No cogent reasons have

Udayagiri Laprosy Eradication and Rehabilitation Sanstha, Udgir vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 936/PUN/2023[-]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotevirtual Hearing आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.936/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Udayagiri Laprosy Eradication The Commissioner Of & Rehabilitation Sanstha, V Income Tax, Exemption, 11, Shivaji Society, Udgir, S Pune. Dist.Latur, Udgir – 413517. Pan: Aaatu8923C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubham Rathi – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshair – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed Electronically I.E.E-Filed & All Documents On System.

Section 12ASection 2(15)

invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee. 3. On perusal of the affidavit, we are of the opinion that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal. Therefore, the delay is condoned. 4. On perusal of the order of ld.CIT(E), it is observed that

Ramakrishna Nimmagadda, Vijayawada vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 30/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.29/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) Venugopal Nimmagadda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Adapn 2791 A Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

belatedly before the Tribunal, we find merit in the argument of the Ld. DR. As stated by the Ld. DR it is not a reasonable cause / sufficient 4 reason to state that the delay in the case of Sri Venugopal Nimmagadda was occurred due to the reason that his brother ... case of Sri Rama Krishna Nimmagadda as well as his brother Sri Venugopal Nimmagadda cannot constitute a sufficient / reasonable cause warranting a huge delay of 1155 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. We therefore find that there is no sufficient / reasonable cause in filing the appeals

Venugopal Nimmagadda, Vijayawada vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 29/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.29/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) Venugopal Nimmagadda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Adapn 2791 A Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

belatedly before the Tribunal, we find merit in the argument of the Ld. DR. As stated by the Ld. DR it is not a reasonable cause / sufficient 4 reason to state that the delay in the case of Sri Venugopal Nimmagadda was occurred due to the reason that his brother ... case of Sri Rama Krishna Nimmagadda as well as his brother Sri Venugopal Nimmagadda cannot constitute a sufficient / reasonable cause warranting a huge delay of 1155 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. We therefore find that there is no sufficient / reasonable cause in filing the appeals

Nanjappa Gounder Palanisamy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1227/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1227/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

filing the appeal. By referring to the above affidavit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay and the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of delay and to admit

Edwise International LLP, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2713/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2713/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2020-21) Edwise International Llp Nfac, Delhi. बिधम/ 2 Jer Mahal Ground Floor, Vs. Opp Metro Cinema Dhobi, Talao Mumbai – 400002

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)
Section 271BSection 44A

which is plausible. And by taking judicial notice of the situation prevalent at that time in India, we are of the view there was reasonable cause for the delay caused in filing the TAR before the due date i.e, 31.10.2020. Since there is reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty

Jatin Khanna, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 58(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3111/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Jatin Khanna, Asst. Commissioner Of Income 10/202, Block-10, Tax, Circle-58(1), Geeta Colony, Vs New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110031 Pan-Bgpk9919G Assessee Revenue

Section 183Section 69A

clearly shows to be an afterthought to reconcile the difference to the AO and thus, the appellant was not prevented by any sufficient or reasonable cause to not be able to produce the relevant supporting documents. Even the AO is remand report has stated that several opportunities were provided