← 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

Sasikumari, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward - IV (3), Chennai

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

ITA 705/CHNY/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.705/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ms.Sasikumari, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Business Ward-Iv (3), Krishna Nagar, Pammal, Chennai. Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aaips 1829 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms.Lakshmi Pichaimani, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)

Therefore, appeal may be admitted to render substantial justice. :: 3 :: 3.1 The Ld.DR submitted that reasons given by the assessee does not come under reasonable cause for condonation of delay and thus, appeal filed by the assessee should not be admitted. 3.2 We have heard both the parties and considered

Natarajan Pillai Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

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

ITA 153/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 152 & 153/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Jai Balaji Nagar, Corporate Ward 5(3), Thirumalai Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 078. [Pan:Albpp8266H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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) 3, Chennai, Dated 06.12.2018 & Dated 13.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 Is Delayed By 788 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Out Of Which 725 Days Are Coming Under Covid-19 Pandemic Period & 63 Days Delay

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

affidavit. By referring to the petition for condonation of delay, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. It was also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton ... detailed petitions filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in the form of affidavits and find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause and the ld. DR has not seriously object to the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. In view of the above, since

Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

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

ITA 152/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 152 & 153/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Jai Balaji Nagar, Corporate Ward 5(3), Thirumalai Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 078. [Pan:Albpp8266H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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) 3, Chennai, Dated 06.12.2018 & Dated 13.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 Is Delayed By 788 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Out Of Which 725 Days Are Coming Under Covid-19 Pandemic Period & 63 Days Delay

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

affidavit. By referring to the petition for condonation of delay, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. It was also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton ... detailed petitions filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in the form of affidavits and find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause and the ld. DR has not seriously object to the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. In view of the above, since

Shri Panmull Ashok Kukar Dugar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc - 9 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 556/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.556/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr.Panmull Ashok Kumar Dugar, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.11, Clemens Road, Of Income Tax, Vepery, Chennai-7. Non-Corporate Circle-9(1) Chennai. [Pan: Aadpd 8081 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.D. Anand, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

natural justice. 2.1 The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that reasons given by the assessee for condonation of delay does not come under reasonable cause and thus, appeal filed by the assessee should not be admitted. 2.2 We have heard both the parties and considered the petition filed ... delay and after considering reasons given for not filing the appeal in time, we are of the considered view that said reasons comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay and thus, we condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and admitted the appeal

Ms. Ashok Kumar Indira Dugar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 9 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 555/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.555/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr.Ashok Kumar Indira Dugar, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.11, Clemens Road, Non-Corporate Ward-9(2), Vepery, Chennai-7. Chennai. [Pan: Aadpd 8082 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.D. Anand, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

natural justice. 2.1 The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that reasons given by the assessee for condonation of delay does not come under reasonable cause and thus, appeal filed by the assessee should not be admitted. 2.2 We have heard both the parties and considered the petition filed ... delay and after considering reasons given for not filing the appeal in time, we are of the considered view that said reasons comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay and thus, we condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and admitted the appeal

Integrated Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 910/CHNY/2019[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 910/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1999-2000 M/S. Integrated Finance Company Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, R-10, Ii Floor, Prem Nagar Income Tax, Colony, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaaci0876M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 20.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 1999-2000. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 281 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Way Of Filing An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Prayed For Condoning The Delay & Admitting The Appeal For 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 391

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 appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication

Mrs. Akila Ramesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 16(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2378/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2378/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Akila Ramesh Income Tax Officer, No.1, Balaji Street, V. Non Corporate Ward -16(1), Kodambakkam, Chennai- 34. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Ahgpa-4112-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Jayakumar, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. S. Jayakumar, Advocate
Section 2(14)

other hand opposing petition filed by the assessee submitted that reasons given by the assessee does not come under reasonable cause as provided under the Act, for condonation of delay. Further, the assessee has already filed :-3-: ITA. No:2378/Chny/2019 appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis ... considered view that reasons given by the assessee for not filing appeal within due date specified under the Act, comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act, and thus, we condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee. 5. In so far as, merits of the issue

Awaaz Foundation, Mumbai vs. ACIT Trust Circle/CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1924/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1924/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit, Trust Circle/Cpc, Awaaz Foundation, Mtnl Building, Peddar C/O- Sumaira Abdulali, 3, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 026 Reshma Apartment, 13 Pali Vs. Hill Road, Near Petit School, Bandra (W) Mumbai-400 050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabta8994Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.07.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Intimation U/S 143(1) For Ay 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 288

Commissioner will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form No. 10B shall satisfy themselves that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such application within the stipulated time. 5. In addition to the above, it has also been decided by the CBDT that where there is delay ... Commissioners of Income-tax shall, while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form No. 10B, satisfy themselves that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such application within the stipulated time. As seen from the above for AY 2018-19 and subsequent years, if Form 10B is delayed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahavir Build Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1407/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. M/S. Mahavir Build Estate Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 216, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aafcm0474Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Department By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271E of the Act since the assessee has not shown the reasonable cause 3 M/s. Mahavir Build Estate Pvt. Ltd., u/s. 273B of the Act for entering into such transactions through journal entries? 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances ... erred in deleting the penalty without giving a finding on transaction to transaction basis in the given case for existence of reasonable cause w/s. 273B which led to the exigency of contravention of provisions of 269T as the fact of each transaction need independent verification?". 3. On the facts

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6140/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

facts and law in not 3. Without prejudice lo above the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in not appreciating the reasonable cause involved as envisaged u/s. 273B of the appreciating the reasonable cause involved as envisaged u/s. 273B of the appreciating the reasonable cause involved as envisaged

Rohit Shah, Mumbai vs. Ommissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14,

ITA 2209/MUM/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2205 To 2209/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14 से 2015-16 एवं 2017- 18 से 2018-19 )

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

assessee did not fully comply with notices dated 09.01.2021 and 01.02.2021 and even the ld. CIT(A) did not find it to be reasonable cause, which in our opinion is a too stringent view under these circumstances. Accordingly, we hold that there was sufficient reasonable cause within the ambit

Rohit Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14,

ITA 2208/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2205 To 2209/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14 से 2015-16 एवं 2017- 18 से 2018-19 )

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

assessee did not fully comply with notices dated 09.01.2021 and 01.02.2021 and even the ld. CIT(A) did not find it to be reasonable cause, which in our opinion is a too stringent view under these circumstances. Accordingly, we hold that there was sufficient reasonable cause within the ambit

Rohit Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-50, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14,

ITA 2207/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2205 To 2209/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14 से 2015-16 एवं 2017- 18 से 2018-19 )

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

assessee did not fully comply with notices dated 09.01.2021 and 01.02.2021 and even the ld. CIT(A) did not find it to be reasonable cause, which in our opinion is a too stringent view under these circumstances. Accordingly, we hold that there was sufficient reasonable cause within the ambit

Rohit Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 50, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14,

ITA 2206/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2205 To 2209/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14 से 2015-16 एवं 2017- 18 से 2018-19 )

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

assessee did not fully comply with notices dated 09.01.2021 and 01.02.2021 and even the ld. CIT(A) did not find it to be reasonable cause, which in our opinion is a too stringent view under these circumstances. Accordingly, we hold that there was sufficient reasonable cause within the ambit

Rohit Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)50, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14,

ITA 2205/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2205 To 2209/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14 से 2015-16 एवं 2017- 18 से 2018-19 )

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

assessee did not fully comply with notices dated 09.01.2021 and 01.02.2021 and even the ld. CIT(A) did not find it to be reasonable cause, which in our opinion is a too stringent view under these circumstances. Accordingly, we hold that there was sufficient reasonable cause within the ambit

Indoco Remidies Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1698/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj
Section 143(3)

Assessment Year.2018-19 Indoco Remidies Limited 4. We have considered the application seeking condonation of delay and are of the view that the Appellant had reasonable cause for delay which has been explained sufficiently. Accordingly, for the reasons for delay specified in the aforesaid application for seeking condonation of delay (summarized

Chevron Metal Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assi.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1001/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 999, 1000 & 1001/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14) M/S. Chevron Metal बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle 8(2) Products Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22-A Panton Bunder Road, Mumbai-400050. Near, Britannia Darukhana, Raey Road, Mumbai- 400010. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2190E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai Dated 21.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Confirming Both The Quantum As Well As Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. AR)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

without looking into the remand report was pleased to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for condoning the delay. In the aforesaid factual scenario, the limited prayer of the Ld. AR is that, since the assessee did not get proper opportunity before

Chevron Metal Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1000/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 999, 1000 & 1001/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14) M/S. Chevron Metal बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle 8(2) Products Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22-A Panton Bunder Road, Mumbai-400050. Near, Britannia Darukhana, Raey Road, Mumbai- 400010. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2190E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai Dated 21.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Confirming Both The Quantum As Well As Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. AR)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

without looking into the remand report was pleased to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for condoning the delay. In the aforesaid factual scenario, the limited prayer of the Ld. AR is that, since the assessee did not get proper opportunity before

Mr. Darshan Navalmal Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 30, Mumbai

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

ITA 1814/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani & MsFor Respondent: Ms. Neeta Jeph
Section 143Section 143(3)

erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex- parte. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciated that there was a reasonable cause for the appellant for not causing appearance on the dates fixed for hearing and as such disposal of appeal without granting fair, meaningful and proper opportunity

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 138/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

Court decision of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard