← 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

Nav Prerna Society, Rewari vs. CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1647/DEL/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : Nil] Nav Prerna Society, Vs Cit(Exemption), Radha Swami Road, Sector-3, Chandigarh. Huda, Rewari, Haryana-123401. Pan-Aaatn9825G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jatin Saini, Ca Respondent By Ms. Samita Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.09.2023

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

before this Tribunal. 5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not receive notice and there was a reasonable cause on failure to represent before Ld.CIT(E). He contended that an opportunity be provided to the assessee in the interest of natural justice ... assessee to the file of Ld.CIT(E) to decide it afresh. The assessee is hereby, directed not to seek adjournment without any reasonable cause. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Mohd Abid, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1508/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

appeal learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not condoning the delay as there was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). He contended that learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided

Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 279/RPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.278 & 279/Rpr/2023 Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti V The Commissioner Of Income Tax H. No.3, Om Bhawan, Avanti Vihar, S (Exemption), Bhopal (M.P) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aabtu0915H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

have been despatched on or before 31st March 2021.” 6. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause that the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(Exemption), Bhopal were neither communicated to the assessee on the registered email id of the assessee

Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 278/RPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.278 & 279/Rpr/2023 Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti V The Commissioner Of Income Tax H. No.3, Om Bhawan, Avanti Vihar, S (Exemption), Bhopal (M.P) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aabtu0915H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

have been despatched on or before 31st March 2021.” 6. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause that the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(Exemption), Bhopal were neither communicated to the assessee on the registered email id of the assessee

Rajesh Kumar Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 501/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139, 5.4 Section 271B lays down that if any person fails, without reasonable cause, to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year or obtain a report of such audit ... less. Section 271B does not leave any discretion with the authority. Penalty u/s. 271B gets attracted unless it is proved that there was reasonable cause for the failure. I do not see any genuine reason in the explanation given by the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant

Harender Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 1708/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Harender Kumar, Vs Ito, Near Telephone Exchange, Tila Ward-1(3), Mod Loni, Loni, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Amopk5215B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mayank Choudhary, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2023

Section 148

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on behalf of the assessee as the notices of hearing were not received by the assessee. 6. On the other hand ... after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case. The assessee is hereby, directed not to seek adjournment without reasonable cause and cooperate in the assessment proceedings. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal

Makson Health Care P Ltd, Mandideep vs. The DCIT/Accit-1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 35/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(i)

Having considered rival submission and the reasons for delay explained by the assessee in the affidavit, we find that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for the delay of 11 days in filing these appeals. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest

Makson Healh Care P Ltd, Mandideep vs. The DCIT/ACIT1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 34/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(i)

Having considered rival submission and the reasons for delay explained by the assessee in the affidavit, we find that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for the delay of 11 days in filing these appeals. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest

Maqtro Pictures, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 999/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 68

those dealing with them. In the cases relied upon, which we have perused, the said argument has been considered as constituting a reasonable cause in the facts and circumstances of the case, which itself implies that the provisions of ss.269SS/T are per se applicable. Reliance there onto support the argument ... said argument. No other case, even as admitted by Sri. Veeramani, the ld. counsel for the assessee, during hearing, i.e., in terms of a ‘reasonable cause’, has been made out at any stage. Though we observe the assessee to have stated in first appeal that money was brought

Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

does so only at his own peril. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is one such consequence, saved of course u/s. 273B on proving a reasonable cause, which is a reiteration of the principle that though a strict civil liability, penalty is yet not automatic and gets excluded where the assessee

Dilip Premnarayan Kabra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1774/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledilip Premnarayan Kabra V. Dcit – Circle 17(1) 117, Kautilya Bhavan 4Th Floor, Arihant Mansion G Block, Bkc Avenue 3 K.N. Road, Masjid Bunder Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400009 Pan: Ahcpk9734A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Mr. Aditya Maheswari Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

justice by condoning the delay. After perusal of the documents submitted by the assessee we are of the opinion that assessee has sufficient and reasonable cause in filing the appeal with the delay. 9. In the case of M/s. Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT in ITA.No. 288/Coch/2017 ... Dilip Premnarayan Kabra cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai

Silver Sand Coop Housing Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1425/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 245Section 80P

days 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. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay ... case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation 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. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly

M/S. Milk Food Aids Pvt. Ltd., Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle Circle, Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 271BSection 273BSection 92E

coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Jodhpur, in ITA No.567/Jodh/2018, we hold that no penalty can be leviable u/s 271BA if there is a reasonable cause for failure of the assessee as provided u/s 273B. Since the explanation given by the assessee are acceptable as reasonable, the penalty levied u/s 271BA

Khilla Coloniers P Ltd, Bhopalc/O0 vs. The ACIT-Circle2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 70/IND/2023[20125-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Khilla Colonizers P.Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ Bhopal Circle 2(1), Bhopal Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadck7900R Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)

have considered the explanation of assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. JCIT TDS Indore, Indore

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

ITA 264/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniidea Cellular Ltd. Jcit 139-140 Electronics Complex Indore Vs. Pardeshipura Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 194HSection 201Section 271C

Appellant has failed to deduct TDS under section 194H of the Act in respect of discount allowed to prepaid distributors and there was no reasonable cause for such non deduction. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a) The Appellant had acted under a honest ... commission to the prepaid distributors and amount on which tax ought to be deducted, the mechanism to deduct TDS fails. c) There was 'reasonable cause' for non-deduction of TDS in view of failure of machinery provisions as also fact that contrary views have been taken by High Courts

Office of the District & Session Judge, Jabalpur vs. CPC-TDS, Karnatak

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

ITA 52/JAB/2021[F.Y- 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleoffice Of The District Vs. Cpc-Tds & Session Judge, Centralrevenuebuilding, Districtcourtbuillding, Income Tax Square, Omti,Jabalpur4820001, Napier Town, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur-482001, Madhya Pradesh. Tan No. : Jbpo00349G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Nema. Adv & Shri S.K Yadav. Adv.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac)Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 200A(1) & U/Sec250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nema. Adv &For Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. DR
Section 200A

order, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not interested and reasonable cause for the delay is not explained. Whereas Office of District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the Levy of Interest ... 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 and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. And the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity

Operadora Comercial De Desarrollo S.A. De C.V., Mexico vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2395/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 . Operadora Commercial De Vs. Dcit, Desarrollo S.A. De C.V. International Taxation, Mexico, Circle-2(2)(2), C/O- Bhatia & Bhatia, New Delhi Chartered Accountants, First Floor, 81, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aabco9252E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 50Section 90(2)

September, 2022 seeking condonation of delay. 3. Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition

Manish Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT Circle-I, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5522/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16 Manish Sharma, Vs. Dcit 510, Circle-1, Patrakar Parishar Apartment, Ghaziabad Sec-05, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. Pan Ateps8104J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

filed by the assessee. (ii) That the above action of the CIT(A) is against the fact that assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from producing these evidences before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case

Manasi Bhattacharya, Puna vs. ITO Ward 1(2) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

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

ITA 77/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemanasi Bhattacharya, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), C-501, Phase-Ii, Nibm Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Raheja Vistas, Napier Town, Opp Cloud Ninesociety, Jabalpur-482001, Pune-411060, Madhyapradesh. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. : Ajdpb1117F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapan Usrethe, Advocate.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 271(1)(B) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe, Advocate.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

assessee has not complied with the notices. Whereas the assessee has filed the reply on 24.01.2020, 18.03.2021 and 13.08.2021 explaining the reasonable cause with the facts that the assessee is a ManasiBhattacharya,Pune. house wife and she was in Jabalpur till December 2003 and after marriage, she shifted to Pune

Basant Grover, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Jabalpur

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

ITA 93/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalebasant Grover, Vs Ito, 245/2, Behind Ashoka Ward-2(3), Apartment, Madanmahal, Jabalpur. Jabalpur-482002 (M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adbpg3734F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 68

bedridden due to heart problem and 1 | P a g e was thus prevented in giving replies to the notices which is a reasonable cause. 2. That, the Ld, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.25.109/-on account of low house-hold expenses, being arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That