← 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

M/S B.N. Dutta, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Cir. 2, Durgapur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant. 4.10 In the present case, the appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing the appeal within the 30 days' time limit and there is inordinate delay in filing of appeal. There should ... time-limits fixed by the Statutes. The behaviour of the assessee could be termed as personified in action and negligence which would not constitute reasonable cause. 4.14 Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vedabai Alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil

Syed Nazeer Syed Fayaz, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 2189/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2189/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

that the Appellant was all along prosecuting an alternative remedy of rectification followed by first and second appeals preferred against the rectification order, constituting reasonable cause in filing the present appeal belatedly. 4) Without prejudice, the Learned First Appellate Authority further erred in not considering that the provisions ... revenue is inordinate and excessive, can not be condoned. We have to examine delay as excessive or inordinate based on whether there is a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal on time by the assessee and in our view when there is a reasonable cause, the period of delay

Priti Pravin Kapadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 28(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 8460/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2011-12 Priti Pravin Kapadia, Income Tax Officer, D/3/703, Moraj Residency, Ward-28(2)(4), Palm Beach Road, Vs. Tower No.6, Sector-16A, Vashi Railway Station, Sanpada East, Commercial Complex, New Mumbai–400705. Vashi, [Pan: Atbpk1174B] Navi Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kartik Kutmutia For Revenue : Shri Sunil Mathews, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 28-10-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income Originally U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟). Subsequently, Basis The Receipt Of Information That The Assessee Has Placed Time Deposit Of Rs. 19 Lakhs With Hdfc Bank, A Notice U/S. 148 Of 2 The Act Was Issued. In Response To The Said Notice, No Return Of Income Was Filed & Thereafter, After Issuance Of Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Act & A Show Cause Notice Which Again Remain Non-Complied, The Assessment Was Completed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Wherein The Ao Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs. 19 Lakhs As Un-Explained Money U/S. 69B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kartik KutmutiaFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69B

demand notice on 10-01-2025 and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 06- 02-2025. It was accordingly submitted that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) due to non-receipt of the assessment order and original demand notice ... been heard, who has submitted that there was a substantial delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and in absence of any reasonable cause shown by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. 4 6. We have heard the rival contentions

Nikhil Vinod Raj Rathod Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 4709/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13 Nikhil Vinod Raj Rathod Jain, Income Tax Officer, 3Rd Floor, Ward-23(2)(6), Jitendra House, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 20/28, Marinelines, Mumbai. Mumbai-400002. Pan : Almpr4342P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gourav Sharma (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 23-03-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Has Passed An Order Dt. 23-12-2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Non-Prosecution & The Said Order Was Subsequently

For Appellant: Shri Gourav SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material placed on record, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal and hence, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication

Kapsons Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(1), Delhi

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4464/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4464/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Kapsons Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, C/O Anuj Kapoor, D-26, South City-1, Vs. Circle 13(1), Gurgaon, Haryana. Delhi. Pan No.Aadck1513A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

would have already filed an appeal within the prescribed time of 60 days (counted from 23.01.2025). The said company was genuinely prevented by reasonable cause for such purely unintentional delay. DEPONENT 2 Verification: Verified at on this …day of July 2025 that the contents of para

Sanjay Gupta, Rourkela Odisha vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO() Gorakhpur

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

ITA 61/VNS/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

appellant assessee before learned CIT(A) explaining the reasons for delay in filing of appeal, I am satisfied that appellant assessee had reasonable cause to explain the delay in filing of appeal before the learned CIT(A). It is held that this was a fit case for condonation of delay

Pandurang Keshav Pandit, Panvel, Maharashtra vs. The DCIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1996/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2614/Pun/2024 & Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69

rise to the said delay. 3. Having gone through the reasons giving rise to the delay in filing of appeal, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have

Pandurang Keshav Pandit, New Panvel vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle

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

ITA 2614/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2614/Pun/2024 & Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69

rise to the said delay. 3. Having gone through the reasons giving rise to the delay in filing of appeal, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have

Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1416/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Pratikh Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

grant fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee before framing assessment and assessee shall also not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. So far as A.Y. 2015-16 is concerned, similar exercise ... grant fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee before framing assessment and assessee shall also not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal on merits raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, appeals of the Assessee

Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1415/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Pratikh Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

grant fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee before framing assessment and assessee shall also not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. So far as A.Y. 2015-16 is concerned, similar exercise ... grant fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee before framing assessment and assessee shall also not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal on merits raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, appeals of the Assessee

S 838 N M Maniyakkaranur Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 2962/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2962/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. S 838 N Maniyakkaranur The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co-Op. Vs. Ward 1(6), Credit Society, Salem D No.88, Periyavadagampatti B,O., Salem – 636 354. Pan: Aaeas 9865L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Bipin.C.N, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin.C.N, CIT
Section 250

merits. The FAA held that there is a delay of 45 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 filed application for condonation of delay before

Bhadravathi Ramalingasetty Manjunath Setty, Bhadravathi vs. ITO Ward-1 Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1459/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Sachin S Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

default u/s Bhadravathi Ramalingasetty Manjunath Setty, Shivamogga Page 6 of 12 44AB stands established and the assessee had failed to substantiate the existence of reasonable cause as envisaged u/s 273B of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.6.25, the assessee has filed ... also not supported by any bills. 7.1 The ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the delay was due to reasonable cause and the delay in filing the audit report was not intentional, willful or deliberate and was occasioned due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee

Gordhanbhai Govindbhai Kalathiya, Thane, Maharashtra vs. ITO- (2) (1), Thane, Maharashtra

Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 668/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Singh, Ld. A.R. (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69C

serving assessment order dated 24.02.2015. The assessee also enclosed a copy of the same. And therefore the assessee has claimed that he had reasonable cause for non- compliance before the AO. Further, the assessee has also claimed that he 3 Mr. Gordhanbhai G. Kalathiya has challenged the assessment order dated

Amar Pal Singh, Noida Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(1) Noida, Noida Gbn U.P

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4680/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4680/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Amar Pal Singh, Income Tax Officer, E-205, Sector-2, Greater Noida, Vs. Ward 1(1), West, Near Trident Embassy, Noida, Bishrakh Jalalpur, Gbn., U.P., Noida. Pan No.Cofps6151B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 250

been filed on 30.07,2025 thus there is a delay of 120 days. 2. That the above delay caused due to bona-fide and reasonable cause as explained in subsequent paras. 3. That it so happened that the complete Ex parte order have been done through ITBA module (faceless asst ... filed within 120 days from the date of receipt of information i.e. 22.07.2025. 5. That the delay took place for a bona-fide and reasonable cause, therefore the delay be please condoned. 6. That the delay in filing the appeal, since would not be beneficial to assessee in any manner

Bharati Nimba Patil, Nashik vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 503/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bharati Nimba Patil, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. S. No.235, P. No.53, 54, Shri Datta Krupa Kalanagar Mhasarul, Behind Aakash Petrol Pump, Nashik- 422004. Pan : Akapp7755P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.48,75,000 Made By The A.O. In The Ex-Parte Asst. Order U/S 144 R.Ws. 147 Passed During Covid Period, By Taxing The Entire Consideration Received On Sale Of Agricultural Land As Stcg Without Verifying The Contention Raised In Form 35 That The Impugned Land Was Rural Agricultural

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication after granting one more opportunity of being heard. 3] The assessee submits that there was a reasonable cause due to which the notices issued by the CIT(A) could not be complied with in as much as both the notices of hearing dated

Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-12, Pune

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

ITA 2526/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 147

reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the view that the reason submitted by the assessee do not constitute sufficient and reasonable cause accordingly the delay was not condoned and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed without going into merits of the case

Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-12, Pune

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

ITA 2525/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 147

reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the view that the reason submitted by the assessee do not constitute sufficient and reasonable cause accordingly the delay was not condoned and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed without going into merits of the case

Swipe Telecom LLP, Pune vs. DCIT Circle - 5, Pune

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

ITA 1911/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1911/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Swipe Telecom Llp, Dcit, Circle-5, Pune Unit No. T-3/T-4, Metro Pole Building, Next To Inox Vs. Theatre, Bundgarden Road, Camp, Pune-411001 Maharashtra Pan-Aarcs7202C अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Jain Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18-12-2025 आदीश /Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.07.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 28.03.2016 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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 by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Durga Shaw, Durgapur vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 1461/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Durga Shaw Acit, Circle-2 Mrityunjoy Housing Complex Iti Aaykar Bhawan, Aayakar Bithi, Ambagan, Bidhan Nagar, City Center, Durgapur, Vs. Durgapur, West Bengal-713212 West Bengal-713216 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Axdps6131Q Assessee By : Shri Shuvo Chakraborthy, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shuvo Chakraborthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR

source of expenditure incurred by the assessee on building.It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.12.2025. (PRADIP KUMAR

M.S. Thanigaivel, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2505/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.2500 To 2505/Chny/2025 'नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18 M S Thanigaivel, The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 5, New No. 13, Vs. Non-Corp Ward-10(6), Jayammal Street, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Acspt-8598-A] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent)

For Respondent: 18.11.2025
Section 144Section 148

appeals by the assessee. After considering the Affidavit filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing these appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests