← 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

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/RPR/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Aug 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

during the assessment proceeding and therefore, what was required to be seen while levying penalty under the above section is, whether there was any reasonable cause for the alleged non-compliance. The appeal against assessment order had no bearing upon the penalty proceedings for non-compliance of various notices ... under: “Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was a reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited as no accounts were maintained, and thus the assessee could not be penalized both under ss. 271A and 271B

Kunan Mal Kalu Ram Jain and Company, Tonk vs. ITO, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 5

appeal was to be filed on/before 26.10.2022 however, the same has been filed on dated 16.02.2023. Thus, delay of 113 days has occurred. 2. Reasonable Cause exist in this connection, it is humbly submitted that the appeal papers were duly prepared by the counsel of the assessee and were sent

M/S. Arrone Ceramic, at Vaghasiya, Taluka Wakaner vs. The JCIT TDS Range, Rajkot

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 117/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194ISection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

paid tax Arrone Ceramic vs. JCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 thereon and therefore, penalty in not leviable is not acceptable. The assessee has without reasonable cause failed to deduct the tax and pay it to the government account within permissible period.” 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the levy ... deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter VXII-B unless there is a reasonable cause for failure as stipulated in Sec 273B. In this case the assessee failed to deduct and deposit the tax as per section 194IA

Nidhi Agarwal, Ghaziabad vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 198/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Stating That The Father Of Chartered Accountant

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

support the above facts and circumstances, affidavit of Assessee is enclosed herewith as Annexure -3. It is submitted that assessee has a bonafide and reasonable cause for not submitting the appeal before Hon’ble Tribunal against the order passed u/s 263 as mentioned above. It is, therefore, prayed that ... producing complete details and explanations before the ld. PCIT in revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, but the same would not constitute any reasonable cause for the delay in filing of appeal before us. Absolutely no reason has been adduced by the assessee for the delay from

ACIT (TDS) Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Sadashiva Sugars Limited, Bagalkot

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/PAN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayraghavanFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 133ASection 271CSection 40

Officer also initiated the penalty proceedings u/sec.271C of the Act and show cause notice dated 01.02.2018 was issued as the assessee without reasonable cause failed to deduct tax at source under the provisions of Chapter-XVII-B. In response to the show cause notice, the respondent-assessee had filed

Sakku Devi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 271(1)(b)

during the course of assessment as well as penalty proceedings. During the appellate proceedings also the appellant has failed to furnish any reasonable cause for non compliance to statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act issued by the AO. Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that penalty

Sakku Devi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

chargeable to tax. 9. When we consider the entirety of the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, it becomes apparent that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing return u/s.139(1) of the Act, against which the penalty has been imposed and confirmed ... u/s.271F of the Act. Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed, inter alia, u/s.271F where the assessee establishes a reasonable cause for failure referred to in said section. This being the position, the case gets covered u/s 273B of the Act. Reliance on the Judgment/Order of "Arjun Dada

Walia Construcation Company, Pathankot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 139/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. The appeal was filed with delay of 354 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition and explained that the reasonable cause for filing the appeal in delay due to wrong advice of the consultant. The ld. AR relied on the order

Bethany Seva Sangam, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward-2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 72/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.72/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bethany Seva Sangam C/O. Bethany College Of Nursing, Borsi, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aaaab0776D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 272ASection 272A(2)(e)

that no penalty u/s. 272A(2)(e) of the Act can be levied, if failure to file the return of income was due to reasonable cause and allow due relief to the appellant. However, in the case of the appellant there is no reasonable cause put forth by the appellant ... statutory obligation, had duly complied with the same well within the stipulated period. 12. To fortify his claim that in case there was “reasonable cause” within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act, no penalty under clause (e) of sub section (2) of Section 272A

Institute Management Committee of Iti, Narayanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ememption-I, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 27/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Institute Management Committee, The Income Tax Officer- Women Iti, Narayanpur, (Exemption-1), Chhattisgarh-494 661. Ayakar Awasiya Parisar, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492 001. [Pan: Aaati 8583 L ] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.Dr : सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

institution: Provided that the registration shall not be cancelled under this sub-section, if the trust or institution proves that there was a reasonable cause for the activities to be carried out in the said manner. In the our case we had applied for registration u/s 12A in form

Bhakti Prem Padma Swetamber Jain Charitable Seva Sansthan, Udaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

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

ITA 179/JODH/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2021-22 Bhakti Prem Padma Swetamber Cit (Exemption), Jain Charitable Seva Sansthan, Vs Jaipur 702 C/O Man Bai Murdia Hospital Hiran Magari Sector-11 Pan: Aaatb1780A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(E) Passed Under Section 12Aa Of The Act On 26.03.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Impugned Order U/S 12Aa(1)(B)Of The Act Dated 26.03.2021 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Cit(E) Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Rejecting The Registration U/S 12Aa(1)(B) Without Providing Adequate & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee In Gross Breach Of Law. The Registration U/S 12Aa(1)(B) So Denied Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Of The Case. Hence The Same Kindly Be Directed To Grant The Registration From The Year When The Application Was Filled.

Section 12A

Assessee filed a condonation petition alongwith the affidavit of the Trustee. On perusal of the affidavit and petition, we are convinced that there was reasonable cause for delay. Hence, we condone the delay. None appeared for assessee on the date of hearing i.e. on 14th 5. August, 2022. However ... case, since Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application merely on the ground of non compliance, we are of the opinion that there was reasonable cause for non compliance, hence we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) to Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication

Prakash Bhansali, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incometax-4(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 23/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 23/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Prakash Bhansali 11/1, Anop Diamonds, Bhansali Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G) Pan : Addpb8997K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri B Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act. 5. After putting the assesse to notice and considering his reply, the A.O. observed that the assessee had, without reasonable cause, failed to get his accounts audited and furnished a tax audit report within the stipulated 4 Prakash Bhansali Vs. ACIT-4(1), Raipur period ... grounds of appeal. The AO has levied penalty u/s 271 B of the Act on the ground that the assessee has without any reasonable cause failed to comply to section 44AB of the Act. It is noticed that the receipts of the firm for the relevant Assessment Year

Shri Jitendra Majithia, Jam Khambhaliya vs. The NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

under Section 271B on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not passed the order mechanically and the assessee was not prevented by any reasonable cause to get its account audited under Section 44AB of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) held that from the Profit & Loss Account, the assessee ... acting as a trader and not a commission agent. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has correctly levied penalty under Section 271B as there was no reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to get its account audited. While passing the order, Ld. CIT(A) observed as under:- “7.2 The AO has imposed

Shri Chutra Ram Choudhary, Barmer vs. Dc, Cen Cir-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 44/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 142(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

Subsequently, the AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and found that the assessee has not disclosed the reasonable cause for non compliance to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations filed in the proceedings

Chintel India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 6140/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

within prescribed time limit before the ld. CIT(A) therefore inordinate delay in filing appeal was rightly denied as there was no sufficient and reasonable cause of delay. 4. On careful consideration of above submission, we are of the view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Chintel India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 6139/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

within prescribed time limit before the ld. CIT(A) therefore inordinate delay in filing appeal was rightly denied as there was no sufficient and reasonable cause of delay. 4. On careful consideration of above submission, we are of the view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Manish Kumar Mali, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Bhilwara

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

ITA 26/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemanish Kumar Mali Vs. Ito, Ward-5, 31/306, Shivaji Bhilwara, Mohalla Nehru Road, Rajasthan. Bhilwara-311001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Awcpm2698A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 271B & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271B

facts, information of the scrutiny assessment and in spite of issuing the penalty notices on various dates there is no compliances and the reasonable cause was not explained and Manish Kumar Mali, Bhilwara. finally the AO has levied a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- and passed the order u/s 271B

M/S. Arun Pulvarising Industries, Pratapgarh vs. Addl. CIT, Chittorgarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 430/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Arun Pulvarising Acit, Chittorgarh, Industries, M.G. Road, Vs Rajasthan Pratapgarh, Rajasthan Pan: Aadfa0793K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Arun Padliya & Shri Abhinav Jaion, Cas Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur Dated 28Th June, 2018 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271E Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “01. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Learned Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Cit(A), Udaipur Erred In Facts As Well As In Law Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of Rs. 3,90,000/- On The Assessee Firm Without Considering The M/S Arun Pulvarising Industries

Section 271ESection 273B

immediate requirement of the money and hence assessee give Rs. 3,90,000/- to HUF in cash. Ld. AR explained that there was a reasonable cause for cash transaction. Ld. AR also explained that there was no intention of tax evasion, as all the transactions are reflected in the account ... said account. One of the transaction was on 30.04.2010 of cash payment of Rs. 3,90,000/-. 7. We have observed that there was reasonable cause for said cash payment. Arun Kumar Gandhi (HUF) had purchased an 4 M/s Arun Pulvarising Industries agricultural land on 30.04.2010 situated at Pratapgarh, Rajasthan

Usha Goyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 43(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Usha Goyal, Vs Acit, 134/135 Vaishali, Pitampura, Circle-43(1), New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aecpg5220J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Paritosh Jain, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

facts that alleged non- compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 06.11.2019, if any was not deliberate and due to reasonable cause, therefore provisions of section 273B of the Act is applicable in the case of the appellant.” 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal ... compliance of the notice. He further contended that non-receipt of the notices was the reason for non-compliance. As the assessee was having reasonable cause for non-compliance, he prayed that the impugned penalty may be deleted. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions

Mr.Mohd Wasim, Bhopal vs. The ITO -3 (2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 26/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Mohd. Wasim Khan, Ito, 3(2), House No. 32, Bhopal बनाम/ Yaseen Mahal, Peergate, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) Pan: Abdpw7203P Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal C.A. & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

Section 144

material on record, the assessee is found to have a Page 4 of 9 Mohd. Wasim, Bhopal v. ITO, 3(2), Bhopal A.Y.2008-09 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