← 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

Surjan Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 92/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Lalwani, ProxyFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)

assessee appeared and application for seeking adjournment was filed without mentioning appropriate reasons. The Bench found that the adjournment application does not show any reasonable cause and thus the same was dismissed. 3 SURJAN SINGH MEENA VS JCIT, RANGE-6, JAIPUR 2.2 Brief facts in this case are that assessment

Subhash Chand Patni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 207/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

officer is required to find out that even if there is any failure referred to in the concerned provision, the same is without a reasonable cause. The initial burden is on the assessee to show that there existed reasonable cause which is the reason for the failure referred ... dealing with the matter has to consider whether the explanation offered by the assessee as regards the reason for failure, is on account of reasonable cause. Reasonable cause means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances for the reason stated

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Shri Jatinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1, Amritsar

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

ITA 231/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 269SSection 271D

appeal has observed that the appellant has not furnished any cogent 3 I.T.A. No. 231/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 explanation regarding the reasonable cause for accepting cash of Rs. 4 lakhs towards sale Proceeds of the land in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS and 271D

Shri Tirlok Singh Through Legal Heir Gurnam Singh, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Gurdaspur

Appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the manner discussed as above

ITA 71/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 70 & 71/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tarlok Singh Through Legal Heir The Ito Gurnam Singh Dorangla Ward Gurdaspur-143521- Punjab Gurdaspur

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri V.S. Aggarwal, ITP
Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

that the failure to file audit report for A.Y.2017-18 was solely on account of expiry of digital signature and as such was prevented by reasonable cause to file audit report. I.T.A. No. 70 & 71/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty ... filing the Audit Report, on account of expiry of digital signature and due to technical glitch in the system. Thus, he was prevented by reasonable cause to update the digital signature and upload the required Audit Report. 5.2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that

Shri Tirlok Songh Through Legal Heir Gurnam Singh, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Gurdaspur

Appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the manner discussed as above

ITA 70/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 70 & 71/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tarlok Singh Through Legal Heir The Ito Gurnam Singh Dorangla Ward Gurdaspur-143521- Punjab Gurdaspur

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri V.S. Aggarwal, ITP
Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

that the failure to file audit report for A.Y.2017-18 was solely on account of expiry of digital signature and as such was prevented by reasonable cause to file audit report. I.T.A. No. 70 & 71/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty ... filing the Audit Report, on account of expiry of digital signature and due to technical glitch in the system. Thus, he was prevented by reasonable cause to update the digital signature and upload the required Audit Report. 5.2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that

Sumit Goel, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2514/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2514/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sumit Goel Ito 6/78, Wea, Ajmal Khan Road, Vs. Ward 51(5) Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Afppg4431F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271BSection 44A

decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar vs. PCIT [416 ITR 336] submits that there is a reasonable cause in not getting the accounts audited and furnished audit report before due date for filing of return and, therefore, no penalty is leviable u/s 271B ... find that the assessee has been filing the tax audit report in time. Therefore, we hold that there is a reasonable cause in not getting I.T.A. No. 2514/Del/2022 the books of accounts audited u/s 44AB within the due date specified for the assessment year under consideration. 10. In the case

Rashmi Jain, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2) Jaipur, Ward 6 (2) Jaipur

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

ITA 134/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Then Cit(A)-2, Jaipur With In 2 Smt. Rashmi Jain Vs Ito,Ward 6(2), Jaipur Prescribed Limitation U/S 249(2) Of The I.T. Act I.E. 30 Days From The Service Of The Impugned Assessment Order (Ii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Reproducing The Reason For Delay By The Appellant Like ‘’Ipse Dixit’’ (Iii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Appears Erred In Applying Judicial Precedent For Dismissing The Appeal While The Precedents Are Supporting To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 249(2)Section 41(1)

considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the appellant in this case was not prevented by a sufficient or reasonable cause for preferring the appeal in time. Therefore, the contention of the appellant to admit the appeal with delay is unacceptable and the appeal

Space Centre Employees Co-Op Society Ltd, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the Appeal and Stay Petition of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 89/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 89/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Space Centre Employees बनाम/ Ito, Ward-2(1), Co-Operative Society Ltd. Trivandrum. Vs. No. T1388 Office Building, Isro Post, Veli, Thiruvananthapurm- 695201. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Sp. No. 20/Coch/2023 Arising Out Of Ita. No.89/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Space Centre Employees बनाम/ Ito, Ward-2(1), Co-Operative Society Ltd. Trivandrum. Vs. No. T1388 Office Building, Isro Post, Veli, Thiruvananthapurm- 695201. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaap1047R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santhosh P Abraham Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh P AbrahamFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

proceedings u/s 271B of the Act because the assessee didn’t furnish the audit report as per section 44AB of the Act and no reasonable cause was brought to his notice, he levied penalty u/s 271B of the Act at Rs.1.50 Lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ... prescribed format can be a reason for levying of penalty u/s 271B of the act and the appellant has not given explanation regarding the reasonable cause for not filling the audit report within the prescribed time limit in prescribed format. Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed

M/S Kanippayyur Service Co-Op Bank, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 1, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 923/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 923/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kanippayyur Service Co- बनाम/ Cit(A)/Income Tax Operative Bank, Department, National Vs. Kanippayyur, Faceless Appeal Centre Kunnamkulam, Thrissur- (Nfac), Delhi. 680517. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtk8207E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vipin K. K Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.08.2022 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied Against The Assessee Society U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Is A Primary Credit Society & Turnover Was To The Tune Of Rs.3,12,85,157/-. Therefore, According To Ao, Since The Assessee’S Turnover Was More Than Rs.1 Crores [As Per Section 44Ab Of The Act] It Was Liable To Get Its Accounts Audited By An Accountant Before The Specified Date; & Furnished By That Date, Report Of Such Audit, In The Prescribed Form Duly Signed & Verified By Accountant By Setting Forth Such Particulars As May Be Prescribed. According To The Ao, The Assessee Failed To Furnish

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. KFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by noting that the assessee failed to show at least reasonable cause for not imposing the penalty. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society eligible for deduction ... State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). During hearing before us, we asked the assessee/Ld AR as to whether there was any reasonable cause for not filing of Tax Audit Report, other than the reasons stated aforesaid, and the assessee could not give any reason. We note from

Thattantavita Asharaf, Vadakara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 900/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 900/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Thattantavita Asharaf बनाम/ Ito, Ward-2(2) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Thattantavita House, P.O, Vs. Thuneri, Vadakara, North Block, Mananchira, Kozhikode District-673514. Kozhikode-673001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aivpa7829G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Imposition Of Penalty U/S 271F Of The Income Tax Act, 1969 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On The Ground Of Failure To Furnish Return Of Income (Roi) As Required U/S 139(1) Or Proviso To That Sub-Section. In This Case, The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Belatedly On 28.03.2013 Reflecting An Income Of Rs.3,72,410/- Whereas As Per Section 139(1) Of The Act Assessee Was To File The Return Of Income On 31.07.2011 (And U/S 139(4) By 31.03.2012). 3. The Ao Before Imposing The Penalty Of Rs.5000/- U/S 271F Of The Act Had Issued Notice Dated 21.12.2018 & After Giving Opportunity To Assessee Has Imposed Penalty On 12.03.2019. 2 A.Ys. 2012-12 Thattantavita Asharaf

For Appellant: Shri R. KrishnanFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271FSection 273B

belatedly on 28.03.2013, showing income of Rs.3,72,410/- as well as claimed refund of Rs.32,280/-. Therefore, assessee has raised the defense of “reasonable cause” given u/s 273B of the Act from imposition of penalty u/s 271F of the Act. According to assessee, since assessee had claimed refund ... assessee has claimed refund while filing belated return on 28.3.2013, the assessee should not be saddled with the penalty because it shows the reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty as held by this Tribunal [Kolkata Bench] in the case of Mrs. Manju Kataruka Vs. ITO in ITA. No. 1955/Kol/2003

M/S.the Paravur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO, Kollam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Stay Petition are dismissed

ITA 105/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 105/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Paravur Service Co- बनाम/ Ito, Income Tax Operative Bank Ltd, Bank Department Vs. Building, Paravur, Post, Kollam. Thiruvananthapuram- 691301. Pan No. Aakas9699E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Sp. No. 45/Coch/2023 Arising Out Of Ita. No.105/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Paravur Service Co- बनाम/ Ito, Income Tax Operative Bank Ltd, Bank Department Vs. Building, Paravur, Post, Kollam. Thiruvananthapuram- 691301. Pan No. Aakas9699E "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaap1047R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santhosh P Abraham Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.01.2023 For Ay. 2017-18. Since We Proceed With The Hearing Of Appeal On Merits, The Stay Petition Filed By Assessee Against Demand Raised Has Become In- Fructuous & So Is Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh P AbrahamFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 271BSection 274Section 44ASection 80P

covered against assessee by the order of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and their Lordship has held that unless the assessee has a reasonable cause for non-filing of audit report as envisaged u/s 44AB of the Act, invites penalty u/s 271B of the Act and drew our attention ... Section 273B provides that, no penalty shall be imposed for any failure referred to in section 271B, if the assessee proves that there was 'reasonable cause' for the said failure 7. From the provisions enumerated as above, it is clear and evident that if an assessee is liable to furnish

Ashwin Liladhar Shah, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 44/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ashwin Liladhar Shah National Faceless Appeal Centre C/O. D. C. Bothara & Co. Delhi Llp (Ca) (Formerly As D. C. Bothara & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Vs. Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: 02.03.2023
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271F

dated 11.11.2021, levied a penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not substantiated his failure to file his return with reasonable cause. 3. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the impugned penalty levied ... confirmed the penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s. 271F of the Act for the reason that the assessee has failed to explain the reasonable cause for non filing of the returns inspite of having earned income from various sources. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision

Shri Dinesh Kumar Goor, Sehore vs. The ITO -3(1), Sehore

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

ITA 59/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidinesh Kumar Gour Ito-3(1) 102, Gour Bhawan, Sehore Vs. Shyampur Road Mandi Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agxpg2044F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

Section 250(6)Section 47

considered reasons of delay explained in the application as well as in the supporting affidavit we are satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for delay in filing present appeal. Accordingly delay of 87 days of present appeal is condoned.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.That

Ghanshyam Patidar, Ujjain vs. The ITO1 (2), Ujjain

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

ITA 27/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanighanshyam Patidar Ito 1(2) Ram Mandir Path Tarana Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Djbpp 7093 F Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

Section 131Section 144Section 44ASection 68

facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied Page 1 of 4 Ghanshyam Patidar Page 2 of 4 that the assessee was having reasonable cause for delay of two days in filing present appeal, same is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That

M/S Aadhar Associates, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 300/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Aadhar Associates Pr. Cit-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavfa 7526 Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

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

considered the medical record of Shri J.C. Sharma since 2019 till the filing of the appeal we are satisfied that the assessee was having reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly the delay of 330 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 845/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

assessee for refund of withholding taxes of Rs. 1.57,39,799/- borne by it on the grounds of delay without taking into account the reasonable cause for such delay. The reasons given for rejection of appeal are wrong, contrary to the facts of the case and against the provisions ... CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 844/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

assessee for refund of withholding taxes of Rs. 1.57,39,799/- borne by it on the grounds of delay without taking into account the reasonable cause for such delay. The reasons given for rejection of appeal are wrong, contrary to the facts of the case and against the provisions ... CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 843/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

assessee for refund of withholding taxes of Rs. 1.57,39,799/- borne by it on the grounds of delay without taking into account the reasonable cause for such delay. The reasons given for rejection of appeal are wrong, contrary to the facts of the case and against the provisions ... CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice