← 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

U.P.Cooperative Federationltd, Lucknow vs. ITO-2(3), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 260/LKW/2023[2003-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Dec 2025AY 2003-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.260/Lkw/2023 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 U.P. Cooperative Federation V. Income Tax Officer-2(3) Ltd Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Pcf Building, 32, Station Road, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226004. Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aaaau0373P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri D. D. Chopra, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 19 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D. D. Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142Section 142(2)(a)Section 153(2)(a)Section 271Section 80PSection 80P(2)

same have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. 6. Because learned CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that Appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not complying with the orders passed u/s 142(2A) because the maximum period permissible to the auditor to carry out special audit ... same have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. 6. Because learned CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that Appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not complying with the orders passed u/s 142(2A) because the maximum period permissible to the auditor to carry out special audit

Rajendra Shripati Jadhav, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Satara

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

ITA 2000/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2000/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha and Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. We 3 Rajendra Shripati Jadhav however taking note of the facts and circumstances and the ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time observe that the delay is not intentional and in light of judgments ... email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result

Vasavi Club, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 994/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 115TSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

after excluding the COVID-19 period, still there is a delay of 526 days, which was not explained by the assessee with ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’. Therefore, in our considered view, the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal in ‘limine’ without condoning the delay ... delay and the circumstances beyond its control for not filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed period with sufficient and reasonable cause. Therefore, by respectfully following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pathapati Subbareddy (died) represented by his L.Rs

ITO., Ward 14(1), Hyderabad vs. Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 672/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the Revenue appear to be genuine and bonafide and constitute a reasonable cause. We further find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji

Malireddi Srinath, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hdyerabad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1721/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69A

delay and the circumstances beyond its control for not filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed period with sufficient and reasonable cause. 13 Malreddy Srinath 12. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case

G K Constructions.Co, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1608/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1608/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 G K Constructions Co. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 050. Vs. Ward-8(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aapfg7527F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69

abnormal and inordinate delay of 1076 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and assessee has failed to explain any ‘reasonable cause’ much less to a ‘sufficient cause’ for such an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has taken only an excuse that

Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the Revenue appear to be genuine and bonafide and constitute a reasonable cause. We further find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji

N N Detonators Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1215/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Through Its Director, Shri A. Vijay Kumar, Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Stating That, An Appellate Order Dated 18.06.2024 Was Passed In Its Case For A.Y. 2017-18 Confirming An Addition Of Rs. 57,00,000/-. The Assessee Submitted That, The Company Did Not Receive Any Intimation Regarding Passing Of The Appellate Order Either Through Email Or Sms, Which, According To The Assessee, Was Due To Technical Issues. Subsequently, The Assessee Came To Know About The Appellate Order Only After The A.O. Passed A Consequential Order Dated 12.11.2024 Giving Effect To The Appellate Order.

Section 143(3)

filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the assessee appear to be genuine and bonafide and come under reasonable cause. We further find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji

Anita Basak, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 1Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144ASection 145(3)Section 270ASection 271Section 271ASection 44A

that the assessee had an obligation to maintain regular books of account, which he failed to do, the failure is definitely due to a reasonable cause and the case is covered under provisions of section 273B of the Income-tax Act. Having regard to the treatment meted out in earlier

Swapngandha Sanjay Parab, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4614/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 271A

K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this principle had condoned the delay of nearly 21 years

Devisingh, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(1)(2), Noida

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

ITA 3360/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Devi Singh Vs. Ito Ward- 5 (1) (2) Vill- Sorkha Sector-115, Noida Noida G.B. Nagar, 21301 Pan No.Apypd3604C Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 144Section 148Section 69

application for the delay stated as under :- 3. We have gone through the submissions made by the assessee and we find that there is reasonable cause for delay in appeal for the reason that the Assessee is totally illiterate and not even now how to put signature. In the delay

Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7056/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee to appear before him at 11.00 AM on 10/04/2014 and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that: “*have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under section ... Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given 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 reasonable

Brajesh Kumar Ahirwar, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhansi

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

ITA 491/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 144

have heard ld. DR of the Revenue and perused the application for condonation of delay. In my considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf

Babu Lal, Mathura vs. The I.T.O. Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura

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

ITA 459/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 250

After considering the age and background of the assessee and after considering the medical certificate submitted before me, I observe that there is reasonable cause for such delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. For the sake of overall justice, I am inclined to condone the delay and remit

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 35/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

part of appellant to prove its case on merits resulted into continuing the disallowances/additions on such account. Moreover the appellant failed to prove any reasonable cause beyond such multiple failures before Ld. NFAC, which in our considered view the appellant’s disregard and disrespect towards quasi-judicial proceedings and authorities

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 34/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

part of appellant to prove its case on merits resulted into continuing the disallowances/additions on such account. Moreover the appellant failed to prove any reasonable cause beyond such multiple failures before Ld. NFAC, which in our considered view the appellant’s disregard and disrespect towards quasi-judicial proceedings and authorities

Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Pune vs. ITO Ward, Hingoli

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

ITA 2113/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Nemin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Pune vs. ITO Ward, Hingoli

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

ITA 2112/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Nemin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

Hitech Flyash India Private Limited, Tuticorin vs. Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3105/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3105/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Hitech Fly Ash India Pvt Ltd., Acit, 2/101-5, Thiruchendur Road, Income Tax Office Muthiahpuram Tuticorn, Tirunelveli, Nellai City Centre Tuticorin-628005, Tiruchendup. Road Tamil Nadu Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli-627011 [Pan: Aabch 7093 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" यथ"/Respondent)

Tirunelveli :: 3 :: assessee has not brought on record any sufficient reason for condonation of delay or any evidence to substantiate that there existed a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. 6. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case

Kalavathy Nagarajan, Tiruvarur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 2832/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2832/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Smt. Kalavathy Nagarajan, The Assistant Commissioner 33, T Agraharam, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tiruvarur H.O., Circle 2(1), Vijayapuram, Trichy. Tiruvarur – 610 001. Pan: Aktpk 3586A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250

merits. The FAA held that there is a delay of 261 days in filing the appeal before him and there is no reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the order of FAA, we noted that the assessee had not filed application for condonation of delay before