← 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

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 842/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17

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 (Appeals)-48, Mumbai

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

ITA 841/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 34/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

That the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is not mandatory rather is discretionary provided the appellant proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. In the present case, it was duly informed to the AO that the appellant was not served with any notice ... imposed in certain cases”. A careful reading of Section 273B encompasses that certain penalties "shall" not be imposed in cases where "reasonable cause". 10. It is seen that penalty imposable u/s. 271(1)(b) is included in the provisions of section 273B. By the said provisions, the Parliament has unambiguously

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 33/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

That the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is not mandatory rather is discretionary provided the appellant proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. In the present case, it was duly informed to the AO that the appellant was not served with any notice ... imposed in certain cases”. A careful reading of Section 273B encompasses that certain penalties "shall" not be imposed in cases where "reasonable cause". 10. It is seen that penalty imposable u/s. 271(1)(b) is included in the provisions of section 273B. By the said provisions, the Parliament has unambiguously

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 32/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

That the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is not mandatory rather is discretionary provided the appellant proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. In the present case, it was duly informed to the AO that the appellant was not served with any notice ... imposed in certain cases”. A careful reading of Section 273B encompasses that certain penalties "shall" not be imposed in cases where "reasonable cause". 10. It is seen that penalty imposable u/s. 271(1)(b) is included in the provisions of section 273B. By the said provisions, the Parliament has unambiguously

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 31/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

That the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is not mandatory rather is discretionary provided the appellant proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. In the present case, it was duly informed to the AO that the appellant was not served with any notice ... imposed in certain cases”. A careful reading of Section 273B encompasses that certain penalties "shall" not be imposed in cases where "reasonable cause". 10. It is seen that penalty imposable u/s. 271(1)(b) is included in the provisions of section 273B. By the said provisions, the Parliament has unambiguously

Rupa Milton Dey, Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 293/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rupa Milton Dey, I.T.O., C-103, Akash Bhumi Apartment, Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Jayvir Co-Op Society, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Akapd 9422 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 406Section 438

therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee has shown sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, such delay in filing appeal is condoned. 5. On merit, I find that

Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.Ustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryfakhri Co-Operative Versus Commissioner Of Housing Society Ltd. Income Tax 422, Matharpakhadi Road, (Appeals) Mazgaon, Nfac, Delhi. Maharashtra-400010. Pan: Aaaaf1078N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Murtaza Quresh Ghandiali & Ms. Sabeena Darukhanawal, Ar Respondent/Department By : Ms. Mini Vinod, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2023 Order Narender Kumar Choudhry, J.M: This Assessee/Appellant Herein Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.01.2023 Impugned Herein Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / Nfac, Delhi {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ay 2013-14. Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. In This Case, The Appellant Earned Interest From Co- Operative & Other Banks & Therefore, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 On 22.08.2013 Which Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Dated 12.11.2014 Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, The Amounts Of Rs. 2,08,071/- & Rs. 50,000/- Have Not Been Considered Under Section 80P(2)(C)(Ii) & Consequently Disallowed.

For Appellant: Sh. Murtaza QureshFor Respondent: Ms. Mini Vinod, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)

days beyond the prescribed time limit as per sub-section (2) of section 249 of the Act. The appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing an appeal within the 30 days time limit which ended on 25.02.2015 and even thereafter for more than 2414 days

Vineet Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 50(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6258/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R.; &
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Counsel submits that Ld. CIT (Appeals) observed that "Section 273B does provide that penalty is not to be imposed if the assessee has reasonable cause for non- compliance." Thus, even according to the Ld. CIT (Appeals), if there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance, there would be room ... order. 5. The ld. Counsel further submits that in view of the fact that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has omitted to note the reasonable cause as pleaded before her and has confirmed the penalty by observing that assessee has failed to explain the reason for non-compliance, the order

M/S Chouhan Education Socity, Bhopal vs. CIT, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 192/IND/2009[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 May 2023AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Chouhan Education Commissioner Of Society, Income-Tax, E-8,Trilanga, Bhopal Vs. Shahpura, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatc255Iq Assessee By Ms.Nisha Lahoti & Vijay Bansal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 12A

other hand, the ld. DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the filing of writ petition cannot be a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal, as the appropriate remedy against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is the appeal before the Tribunal

Fancy Diamonds India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. N F Ass C / DCIT-5(1)(1) (Current Juridiction), Mumbai

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

ITA 728/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sfancy Diamonds India Nfassc/Dcit-5(1)(1), Pvt.Ltd., 52, Sidhpura Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Industrial Estate, 2Nd M.K.Road, Vs. Floor, Gaik Wadi, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Goregaon, Mumbai-400062. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf3325J (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Smt.Vranda U Matkarni.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld.Cit Erred In Confirming Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Fancy Diamonds India Pvt.Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Vranda U Matkarni.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 41(1)

within the time period. Whereas in the penalty proceedings the assessee has filed the submissions vide letter dated 18.04.2021 explaining the reasonable cause for not filing the information within the time granted as per notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The AO was not satisfied with the explanations ... that the assessee has not filed the details called for in the assesseement proceedings within time limit and the assessee has not explained the reasonable cause before the lower authorities on the delay and the Ld.DR supported the order of CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions

Shri Radheyshyam Bisani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 288/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

affirmative, whether holding of belief contrary by an assessee can be held to be bona fide so as to be considered as a reasonable cause in terms of section 273B, read with section 271B, of Income-tax Act. The High Court after considering the facts and submissions of the parties ... renders it impossible for the assessee to file a valid return at any time, even if default is held to be attributed to reasonable cause with the assessee or leaves a leeway for making compliance with the provision before regular assessment in pursuance of valid return could take place

Rasik Nemchand Pethad, Thane vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

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

ITA 66/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rasik Nemchand Pethad Dcit, Cc-1 Gala No.3, Nausibai Compound, Thane Vs. Near Sarkari Bunglow, Chitalsar Manpada, Thane-400 610 Pan/Gir No. Aanpp 1791 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

confirmed the penalty levied by the A.O. for the reason that the assessee has failed to substantiate any reasonable cause for non filing of tax audit report within the due date specified under the Act. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order ... delay in filing the tax audit report. The ld. AR for the assessee 3 Rasik Nemchand Pethad vs. DCIT submitted that there was reasonable cause for the delay and prayed that the impugned penalty be deleted. 8. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue

Easow Thomas, Mumbai vs. CIT Ministry of Finance Income Tax Department NFAC, Kalyan

ITA 336/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Haryana)]. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the Appellant, in any case, had a reasonable cause in terms of Section 273B of the Act, as the Appellant was a senior citizen who did not have requisite knowledge and was, therefore

National Law University, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-48(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2288/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2288/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 National Law University Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Sector-14, Dwarka Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi-110078 National Faceless Assessment Pan : Aaalt0918Q Centre, Delhi

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiab)Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 271BSection 44A

books of accounts audited as per the provisions of the sec. 44AB of the I.T. Act 1961., Apart from the above there is no reasonable cause for the aforesaid failure and enough material was brought on record to prove that the appellant had failed to audit his accounts as required

Smt. Meha Jain, Jalgaon vs. DCIT (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 996/IND/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

assessment and also pursuing the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, we are satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause being time consumption in collecting relevant documents lying with different authorized representative at different locations for a delay of 30 days in filing the present

Parag Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-58(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Priyansh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahemad, Sr.DR
Section 271BSection 44A

proceedings. Such turnover arising from derivative / speculative transactions are far lower than the threshold limit prescribed under Section 44AB of the Act. Consequently, a reasonable cause has been shown by the assessee for non compliance of provisions of Section 44AB of the Act. The issue is squarely covered in favour

Shree Swamy Samarth Prassana Oshiwara (E) Units Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 237/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 148

adduced any 21. In the present case, the appellant has not adduced any 21. In the present case, the appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing the appeal reasonable cause which prevented it from filing the appeal reasonable cause which prevented it from filing

Mukesh Desai, Mumbai vs. Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3031/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

requesting the bench to condoned the delay 3. Having heard the parties on this preliminary issue, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. We noticed that

Motor Magic Auto Zone, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2638/DEL/2022[2014-15 (Q-3)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: None
Section 200ASection 234E

fault in not filing appeal within due time. In the applications the it is prayed that delay may kindly be condoned keeping in view reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The learned Senior DR strongly opposed to the condonation of delay. 4. On careful consideration of above we find that ... days has been caused due to lapses and omissions on the part of counsel of assessee and cause shown by the assessee is a reasonable cause beyond control of the assessee. Therefore delay of 29/31 days in filing both the appeals is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication