← 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

Cancare Research Foundation, Dadar West vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions Mumbai, Cumballa Hill Mumbai

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

ITA 8426/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2024-25 Cancare Research Foundation, Commissioner Of Income Tax 25, Moti Bhuvan, (Exemptions), Dr. D‟Silva Road, Vs. Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Dadar West, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400028. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Pan : Aabtc5371K Dr.Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Shivali Mhatre For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms. Shivali MhatreFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 80G

perusing 2 the affidavit placed on record, the contents of which have not been rebutted by the Revenue, 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. 3. During the course

The Omniscient Securties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8023/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

Ld.AR submitted that admittedly there was a delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that there was however, a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and in this regard, the assessee has explained as part of its memorandum of appeal (Form

The Omniscient Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8021/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

Ld.AR submitted that admittedly there was a delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that there was however, a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and in this regard, the assessee has explained as part of its memorandum of appeal (Form

Mvr Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1254/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

For Appellant: Srinavya Adabala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 253(3)

condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal with ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ and submitted that, the reasons explained by the assessee are general in nature. He, therefore submitted that, the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee ... Tribunal within the prescribed 6 ITA.No.1253/Hyd./2025 date, are vague and general in nature and the assessee has failed to show ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ for condonation of delay. We observe that, during the course of assessment proceedings and during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) also

Mvr Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1253/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

For Appellant: Srinavya Adabala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 253(3)

condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal with ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ and submitted that, the reasons explained by the assessee are general in nature. He, therefore submitted that, the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee ... Tribunal within the prescribed 6 ITA.No.1253/Hyd./2025 date, are vague and general in nature and the assessee has failed to show ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ for condonation of delay. We observe that, during the course of assessment proceedings and during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) also

Chaitanya Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1098/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1098/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Chaitanya Agarwal, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-7(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. Pin 500 012 Pin – 500 084. Telangana. Pan Artpc2750K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri Akshay Surana, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

Section 144Section 270ASection 68

other hand, the learned DR has opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has failed to explain any reasonable cause, much less a sufficient cause for the delay of 148 days in filing the present appeal. She has further contended that the conduct of the assessee

Madan Mohan Rao Puvvada, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

served to the assessee. The learned DR has thus, submitted that the assessee has failed 3 ITA.No.1152/Hyd./2024 to explain any ‘reasonable cause’ much less ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay of 158 days in filing the present appeal. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well

Vathsalyam Trust, Hosur vs. CIT (Exemption), Salem

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

ITA 3196/CHNY/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. A.Sharren, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 119Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

filed beyond the time allowed in sub- clauses (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time ... regard to delay, the proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) expressly empowers the PCIT or CIT to condone delay, if satisfied that there exists reasonable cause. The language of the proviso is enabling and confers discretionary jurisdiction which must be exercised judiciously. In the present case, we find that

M/S. Avm Productions, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-20(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

Section 270Section 270A

case for imposition of penalty and accordingly. Hence, for the reasons discussed above, I am satisfied that the assessee has without any reasonable cause mis-reporting the particulars in respect of income amounting to Rs. 11,04,541/- and had rendered himself liable for penalty u/s 270A ... case for imposition of penalty and accordingly. Hence for the reason discussed above, I am satisfied that the assessee has without any reasonable cause misreporting the particulars in respect of income amounting to ₹11,04,541/- and rendered himself for penalty M/s. AVM Productions :: 8 :: u/s.270A of the Act.” Accordingly

Smita Suresh Janwalkar, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 368/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmita Suresh Janwalkar Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Bldg No 168 Panchaganga It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Chs, Pantnagar, Ghatkopar E, Building, Thane, Mumbai-400075. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No: Bbqpj2341M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(x)

being heard was granted to the appellant. 4. The appellant submits that the non-appearance before the learned CIT(A) was due to reasonable cause, as the appellant is residing at her native place and is not technologically conversant, and therefore the failure to respond to electronic notices was neither

Sudhir Namdev Kadam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7175/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in filing, without appreciating that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the application for condonation

Mahaveer Singh, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

Later vide order dated 12-09-2023, the assessing officer dropped the penalty proceedings accepting the reasonable cause for assessee’s failure to comply with the notices, which were served on the wrong address of the assessee. Thus Ld. Counsel submitted the Ld. PCIT is not correct in assuming jurisdiction ... grounds raised by the assessee. Though the assessing officer would have dropped the penalty u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act on reasonable cause, the assesse failed to explain why he has not filed the original return u/s. 139(1) of the Act and not paid taxes even under presumptive

Bimal Kumar Ghosh, Raiganj vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Raiganj

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

ITA 1600/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

time and he has explained the reasons in the affidavit. On going through the above reasons/explanations, we noted that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the specified time. Therefore, in line of the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji

Sanmargadarsi Trust, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu vs. DCIT Exemtions, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3324/CHNY/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3324/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. P.S.Sadasivan, C.A (virtual)
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

reason for delay in filing the appeal before the FAA is not tenable. In view of this discussion and considering that there is no reasonable cause substantiated by the assessee before us, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the FAA in dismissing

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

before the limitation period. After considering the affidavits filed by the revenue and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the revenue in not filing appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

before the limitation period. After considering the affidavits filed by the revenue and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the revenue in not filing appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

before the limitation period. After considering the affidavits filed by the revenue and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the revenue in not filing appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

ACIT, Chennai vs. Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

before the limitation period. After considering the affidavits filed by the revenue and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the revenue in not filing appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

ACIT, Chennai vs. Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 1639/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

before the limitation period. After considering the affidavits filed by the revenue and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the revenue in not filing appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

Shri Dandi Sewa Ashram, Onkareshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Bhopal

ITA 560/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 10(24)Section 11Section 124Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Commissioners 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. 1[Further, all such pending applications as well as applications received henceforth shall be disposed off preferably within three ... enclosed herewith. The email address was given of the counsel who did not inform the assessee about the order. Since there was a reasonable cause, the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in rejecting the application