“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

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 71/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 & 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 14.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 130 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 & The Same Is Well Within The Extended Period

For Appellant: Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 37

appeals for adjudication. The ld. DR has not seriously object to the submissions of the ld. Counsel. Since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 3. The first common ground

C.Jebamani, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 11(4), Chennai

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

ITA 157/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.157/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.C.Jebamani, The Income Tax Officer, 62/1, Peters Road, Non-Corporate Ward-11(4), Royapettah, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Acnpj 6400 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.T.Vasudevan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.M.Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

considered view that reasons given by assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act, comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act, for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted

ACIT, Circle-1, Vellore vs. M/S. Brownland Properties, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 3315/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3315/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. The Asst. Commissioner- M/S.Brownland Properties, Of Income Tax, No.84/2, Arni Road, Circle-1, Kosapet, Vellore. Vellore. [Pan: Aajfb 7669 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T.Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 194BSection 43C

considered view that reasons given by Revenue for not filing the appeal within the time allowed M/s.Brownland Properties :: 2 :: under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed

Smt. Kamala, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-4, Podicherry

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

ITA 2616/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2616/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt.Kamala, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.50, 4Th Cross Street, Ward-4, Anna Nagar, Nellithope, Pondicherry. Pondicherry [Pan: Brjpk 7757 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.G. Aniesh, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Mr.G. Aniesh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

considered view that reasons given by assessee for not filing the appeal within the time Smt.Kamala :: 2 :: allowed under the Act, comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act, for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee

Asian Business Connections Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 917/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasian Business Connections Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 5(3), Fm-18 Mansarovar Complex No. 7 Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal Mumbai-400020 Madhya Pradesh - 462016

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 294BSection 69Section 69C

respect of extension of limitation period the delay can be condoned and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Further we are satisfied with the reasonable cause explained for delay in filling the appeal and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds

Syed Mohammed Rizwan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bangalore

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

ITA 696/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Syed Mohammed Rizwan Vs The Income Tax Officer-2(2)(8) No. 193, 1St Main Road Bmtc Depot Sheshadripuram Koramangala Bangalore 560020 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Afvpr3337R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Bangalore Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A) 11, Bangalore Is Bad In Law & 'Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Assessment Order Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2.1 The Learned Ao Erred In Making The Addition Under Section 68 Amounting To Rs. 3,99,46,180, Rs. 33,69,742 & .The Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 24(B) Amounting To Rs. 2,00,000 In An Undue, Haste & Mechanical Manner Without Properly Considering The Details & Documents Filed During The Assessment. 2.2 The Learned Ao Erred In Passing The Assessment Order & Erred In Making The Impugned Additions Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24Section 68

Rishi Sagar v. ITO, 36 tavnionn.com 508 had held that where assessee had failed to produce documents during assessment and failed to establish reasonable cause thereof, additional evidence could not be accepted in appeal. This decision was affirmed by the HC in the case of Rishi Sagar v. Commissioner

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

applicable between the Executive Directors and the Company wherein the Executive Directors are maintaining a running account with the Company which is the reasonable cause u/s 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the fact and circumstances of the case, and under the provisions of law, the Commissioner ... No.387, 152 ITR statute 1 it was never an intention of the legislator to punish the party involved in genuine transactions, if there was reasonable cause u/s 73B the penalty u/s 271D of the Act cannot be levied. 2.19 In the Assessee Company case also, the Directors of the company

Saravana Foundation, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3376/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3376/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Saravana Foundation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Bajanai Koil Street, Non Corporate Ward 15(4), Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Chennai. [Pan:Abmfs6610H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Dated 17.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147oSection 148Section 271BSection 44A

admitted that the assessee has filed the return of income along with tax audit report. Considering the explanations that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty

Virugalpattipudhur Rimary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, Tirupur vs. CIT-(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 632/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.632/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Virugalpattipudhur Primary Ward-1 Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Pollachi. Society, K, 752, Negamam, Virugalpattipudhur, Tirupur-642 120. Pan: Aaaav 9952D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

considered view that reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted

Antonio Whitney Munroe, China vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 35(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1801/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleantonio Whitney Vs. Acit-Circle 35(1), Munroe,4 Th Floor, Mumbai -400020. Thomson Reuters, Piramaltowers,Corporate Park,G.K.Marg, Lower Parel, West, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. Bahpm5057R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.K.K.Vaid,&Mr.A.K.Jawadwala.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Mr.Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-46 Mumbai Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Confirming The Validity Of The Assesseement Order & The Cit(A) Also Has Erred In Non Granting Of Tds Credit &Foreign Tax Paid Credit. Antonio Whitney Munroe. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Resident Of China & Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Of 48 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Explained That Due To Covid-19 Pandemic, The Filling Was Delayed & Relied On The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Respect Of Extension Of Period Of Limitation. We Find The Registry Has Issued Defect Notice To The Assessee Mentioning The Delay Of 806 Days In Filling The Appeal. On Application Of The Ratio Of Decision Of The Honble Supreme Court In Respect Of Extension Of Limitation Period, The Delay Is Restricted To 48 Days & The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Further We Are Satisfied With The Reasonable Cause Explained For Delay In Filling The Appeal & Accordingly We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.K.K.Vaid,&Mr.A.K.Jawadwala.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Mr.Manoj Sinha.DR

Section 144

extension of limitation period, the delay is restricted to 48 days and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Further we are satisfied with the reasonable cause explained for delay in filling the appeal and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The Brief facts of the case

Kokila Balaraman, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 718/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

appeal was not filed within the period of 30 days. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the Appellant. In my view, reasonable cause was not established for condonation of delay. The condonation is not a matter of right and there must be a reasonable cause for condoning

B.Gokula Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

Shri Ramanlal Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc - 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1331/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 5

this fact to light and steps were taken to file the appeal immediately. It has been submitted that there was bona-fide mistake and reasonable cause in not preferring the appeal in time. The Ld. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal in limine and submitted that even before

Anuradha Chivukula Challa, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Range-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 585/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(It)A No.585/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa The Additional Commissioner No.12, Seshu, 12Th Cross Of Income-Tax, International V. Indiranagar 1St Stage Taxation, Range – 1 Bangalore – 560 038. Bangalore. Pan : Bgapc8765M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 08.06.2022. The Order Of The Cit(A) Arises Out Of The Order Of A.O. Imposing Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017- 2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

appellate authority. The assessee filed detailed submission 3 IT(IT)A No.585/Bang/2022 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa. before the A.O and contended that there was a reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for deletion of the penalty. However, the CIT(A) was of the view that there ... said sale of properties. 8. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has not made out a case of reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for waiver of penalty. In this context, the learned DR relied on the judgment

Smt.Adithyapan Amutha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 74/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

receipts in one bank account from disclosing for income taxation. AO has clearly worked out the addition of Rs.17,75,004/-. There is no reasonable cause for concealing the bank account and turnover. Penalty levied on the above is confirmed. ……………. 5.3 Similary, penalty for concealment levied on addition of Rs.3

Abha Rajesh Kapoor, Mumbai vs. PCIT -Circle -24, Mumbai

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

ITA 1655/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Abha Rajesh Kapoor, Principal Commissioner Of D-1, Gita Prakash, 4 Income Tax-24, Bungalows, J.P. Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Andheri (West), Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Adqpk 1331 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

imposed by the A penalty of Rs 150000/ imposed by the AO under section O under section 271B of the Act ignoring the reasonable cause as to 271B of the Act ignoring the reasonable cause as to 271B of the Act ignoring the reasonable cause as to uploading ... fore the Ld. CIT(A) and sought relief from the penalty on the relief from the penalty on the ground of reasonable cause for reasonable cause for not uploading audit repo not uploading audit report on the website of the Income rt on the website of the Income-tax Department

M/S Pravin Basantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 534/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 148Section 151Section 68

this preliminary issue. Having regard to the submission made by the assessee in the petition, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing the appeal within limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The facts

M/S. Waterline Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

penalty proceedings on 18.3.2020 and filed the appeal based on professional advice. In our considered view, the reason given by the assessee is a reasonable cause and we therefore condone the delay and consider the appeal for adjudication. Page 5 of 20 Valuation of shares 8. The AO during

Eaton Power Quality Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

considered view that reasons given by the Revenue for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act, for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of appeal is adjudication. ITA No.567/Chny/2016 (Assessee’s appeal): 4. The first

DCIT, Pondicherry vs. Eaton Power Quality P. Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1689/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)