← 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

Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 565/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250

I.T.A. No.: 565/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Jaiswal. grounds of appeal and should not take adjournment, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 19th December, 2022. [Manish Borad] Accountant Member Dated

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Cabcon India (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in I

ITA 1131/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Revenue. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the Revenue was prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The Revenue is in appeal

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Cabcon India (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in I

ITA 1129/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Revenue. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the Revenue was prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The Revenue is in appeal

Viveck Mathreja, Mumbai vs. ACIT National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalviveck Mathreja Vs. Acit, National Face Less Plot No. 5, Trishul Assessment Centre Hatkesh Co-Op, Hsg.Sty, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Road No. 6, Jvpd, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Ville Parle (W), Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai - 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acxpm8278M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N.R. AggarwalFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ACXPM8278M Whereas in the course of proceeding before me for the assessment year 2011-12 it appear to me that you:- Have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return f Income which you were required to furnish b a notice given under ... under Section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ……………dated ……or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. Have concealed

Rooprekha Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 300/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 68

prayer for condonation of the same. That the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period is unintentional, bona fide and for reasonable cause. The Hon'ble Bench would appreciate that the company would not have gained in any manner whatsoever by not filing the appeal within

Sushil Kumar Paul, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

proceedings before me for the assessment year 2016-17, it appears to me that you:- 8 Sushil Kumar Paul A.Y. 2016-17 Have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under section ... section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/ 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, No………….. dated………. Or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. Have without

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 47/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

facts were pointed out to ld.CIT-DR, he opposed the condonation of delay and stated that the assessee could not explain the delay with reasonable cause but could not controvert the contents of the affidavit or the fact that the assessee Director’s father died in hospital due to cancer ... Even the mother of the assessee was suffering from cancer and admitted to hospital on 30.10.2019. These facts clearly show that there is reasonable cause and hence, we admit these three appeals of assessee and adjudicate on merits. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that these appeals were

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 46/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

facts were pointed out to ld.CIT-DR, he opposed the condonation of delay and stated that the assessee could not explain the delay with reasonable cause but could not controvert the contents of the affidavit or the fact that the assessee Director’s father died in hospital due to cancer ... Even the mother of the assessee was suffering from cancer and admitted to hospital on 30.10.2019. These facts clearly show that there is reasonable cause and hence, we admit these three appeals of assessee and adjudicate on merits. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that these appeals were

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 45/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

facts were pointed out to ld.CIT-DR, he opposed the condonation of delay and stated that the assessee could not explain the delay with reasonable cause but could not controvert the contents of the affidavit or the fact that the assessee Director’s father died in hospital due to cancer ... Even the mother of the assessee was suffering from cancer and admitted to hospital on 30.10.2019. These facts clearly show that there is reasonable cause and hence, we admit these three appeals of assessee and adjudicate on merits. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that these appeals were

ACIT Circle 3(1), Trichy vs. N.S.K.Builders, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1415/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

facts were pointed out to ld.CIT-DR, he opposed the condonation of delay and stated that the assessee could not explain the delay with reasonable cause but could not controvert the contents of the affidavit or the fact that the assessee Director’s father died in hospital due to cancer ... Even the mother of the assessee was suffering from cancer and admitted to hospital on 30.10.2019. These facts clearly show that there is reasonable cause and hence, we admit these three appeals of assessee and adjudicate on merits. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that these appeals were

Shri Ramakrishnan Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle - 14, Chennai

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

ITA 754/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.754/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ramakrishnan Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 80, Old No. 25, I Avenue, Income Tax, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. Non Corporate Circle 14, Chennai. [Pan:Ammps5348D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Abhisek Murali, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-3, Chennai, Dated 15.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Dr. Abhisek Murali, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 263

filing the appeal. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not been able to establish any reasonable cause to condone the delay and the delay may not be condoned. He also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal ... period and 167 days after Covid-19 period. The delay in Covid-19 period of 305 days [472 – 167] is acceptable as there is reasonable cause for the delay. But, the remaining period of 167 days day in filing the appeal, in the affidavit, the assessee has submitted that

Senthilmurugan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

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

ITA 768/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Senthil Murugan Jewellers Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 106, 107 & 108, South Income Tax, Avani Moola Street, Madurai 625 001. Corporate Circle 2, [Pan:Aajcs8546F] Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai-1, Madurai, Dated 31.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee company has not advised the assessee to file the appeal. For that effect, the C.A. filed an affidavit dated 29.10.2022. Since, there is reasonable cause for the delay, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay by relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court ... case law relied upon by the ld. DR in the case of Mrs. Preeti Madhok v. ITO (supra), in the absence of any reasonable cause, the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal has observed and held as under: “5. We have heard both the parties and considered the petition filed

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

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

ITA 655/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

above submissions of the assessee. In view of the above submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication ... both the assessment years. Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

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

ITA 654/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

above submissions of the assessee. In view of the above submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication ... both the assessment years. Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before

Norma Lydia Ayyash, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2760/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenorma Lydia Ayyash Vs. Ito – 24(3)(2) 15, Goundowli, Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, East, Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akipa4487B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Ms.Mansi Ayachit.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms.Mansi Ayachit.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195

file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate along with the appeal filed electronically and the assessee should file the condonation application explaining the reasonable cause as there is a delay in filing the appeal Norma Lydia Ayyash, Mumbai. electronically. The CIT(A) shall consider the facts and circumstances

Shri Bhanwarlal M. Harsh, Thane vs. Dy CIT CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Bhanwarlal M Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) A/2, 406, Runwal Plaza, Air India Building Nr. Koresh India Vartak Nariman Point, Nagar, Thane (West) Mumbai - 400021 400606 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacph5666F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Manoj MundraFor Respondent: J. Saravanan
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

under: “Whereas in the course of proceeding before me for the assessment year 2011- 12 it appears to me that you:-  have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under section ... section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, No…………………………..dated…………. or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice.  have without

M/S.Maratha Mandir, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Exp)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3961/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3961/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Maratha Mandir बिधम/ Acit (Exemptions) 2(1), Maratha Mandir Building, Maratha Mumbai Vs. Mandir Marg, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008

For Appellant: Shri. Ravi SavanaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 12ASection 24

deliberate. 9. Having heard both the parties regarding admission of additional evidences, we find that the assessee could not file the same for the reasonable cause as discussed (supra) mainly the failure of the C.A. in ITA. NO. 3961/MUM/2018 A.Y.2012-13 M/S. Maratha Mandir advising the assessee on this issue

Sanhita Ghosh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-29(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 557/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017
Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 68

parte framed u/s. 144 of the I.T Act, 1961. Even before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee could not appear for reasonable cause. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the facts mentioned by the ld. AO are not correct since one of the bank accounts referred ... being provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and should not take adjournment unless otherwise required on reasonable cause. In case the assessee fails to appear on two consecutive dates of hearing without reasonable cause the ld.AO can proceed in accordance with

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4322/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

limine.” 29. Ld. AR of the assessee objected for the condonation of delay as revenue has not brought on record any sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing cross objection. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case ... Revenue’s cross objection is delayed and the assessee has vehemently argued that the deletion should not be condoned, as there is no reasonable cause for the delay. We find that on this issue, the assessee has made the following submissions: In the assesse' s own appeal

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2218/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

limine.” 29. Ld. AR of the assessee objected for the condonation of delay as revenue has not brought on record any sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing cross objection. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case ... Revenue’s cross objection is delayed and the assessee has vehemently argued that the deletion should not be condoned, as there is no reasonable cause for the delay. We find that on this issue, the assessee has made the following submissions: In the assesse' s own appeal