← 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

Nanjappa Shivaprasad, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 2073/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

notices, however the department had issued notices through electronic mode and hence the exparte orders have been passed. 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

Nanjappa Shivaprasad, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 2072/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

notices, however the department had issued notices through electronic mode and hence the exparte orders have been passed. 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

Mr. Bharat Datta Nakhava, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 3, Panvel

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

ITA 1951/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

notices of hearing given by ld.CIT(A) and in absence of any representative, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. He submitted that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to put appearance on the dates of hearing and therefore prayed to restore the issues raised on merit to the file of ld.CIT ... 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 hereby set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 3 Bharat Datta Nakhava

Psr Sustainability Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1921/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Appellant by None
Section 12ASection 5Section 80G

good case on merits.” 4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the applications, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the appellant to file the appeals within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and appellant would not have gained from ... make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(E). It should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of purposes. 14. Since the issue of regular registration has been remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication

Psr Sustainability Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1920/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Appellant by None
Section 12ASection 5Section 80G

good case on merits.” 4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the applications, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the appellant to file the appeals within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and appellant would not have gained from ... make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(E). It should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of purposes. 14. Since the issue of regular registration has been remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication

Mazher Ali Khan, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1286/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1286/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) Shri Mazher Ali Khan, Dy. Cit, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad Pan: Aezpk4724N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. :

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144B

Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the plea for remand and submitted that the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournments without any sufficient or reasonable cause. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal for non- prosecution. 6. We have considered

Sree Raja Rajeswari Educational Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 972/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 194C

assessee. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. After hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

The Chandrasekarapuram Co-Operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. N. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

appeal 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 appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

Income Tax Officer, Churchgate vs. M/S Nnm Securities Pvt. Ltd., Fort

ITA 1207/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Ito-4(2)(1) M/S. Nnm Securities P. Ltd. Room No. 644 1111 Stock Exchange Tower Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Dalal Street, Fort M.K. Road Mumbai-400 023. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaacn8070G Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 154/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya

with a small delay of loss than a month after going through the affidavit filed by them, it is decided that there is a reasonable cause and hence the delay is condoned, the decision is being given on merits of the case. 6. The first issue to be decided

Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam, Tirumala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 519/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.519/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam Vs. Income Tax Officer Tirumala Ward 1(1) Pan:Aawts0401P Guntur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Uday & Gopi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-2,Ahmedabad (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dated 15/02/2024 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 242 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. In This Regard, The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Uday & Gopi, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, SR-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR contended that the delay of 242 days was on account of sufficient and reasonable cause, which was neither deliberate nor intentional. Therefore, he prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 956/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

time prescribed as per Income Tax Act, 1961. Moreover, the AO has also pointed out that the appellant had failed to submit any reasonable cause, as given under section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the appellant failed to submit any reasonable cause for the delay ... words "reasonable cause" has not been defined under the Income tax Act but they could receive the same interpretation which is given to the expression "sufficient cause". Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the words " reasonable cause" would mean a cause which is beyond the control

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 955/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

time prescribed as per Income Tax Act, 1961. Moreover, the AO has also pointed out that the appellant had failed to submit any reasonable cause, as given under section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the appellant failed to submit any reasonable cause for the delay ... words "reasonable cause" has not been defined under the Income tax Act but they could receive the same interpretation which is given to the expression "sufficient cause". Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the words " reasonable cause" would mean a cause which is beyond the control

Savta Maharaj Gramin Bigarsheti Sankari Pathsansth Maryadit, Borban Ghargaon vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2089/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2087&2089/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Vs Ito, Ward-2, Savta Maharaj Gramin Bigarsheti San Ahmednagar Kari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Borban Ghargaon, Ghargaon, Sangamner, Ahmednagar-422605 Maharashtra Pan-Aaeas8066K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

hearing shall be given 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 in ITA No. 2087/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. So far as penalty appeal in ITA 2089/PUN/2025

Savta Maharaj Gramin Bigarsheti Sankari Pathsansth Maryadit, Borban Gahrgaon vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2087/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2087&2089/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Vs Ito, Ward-2, Savta Maharaj Gramin Bigarsheti San Ahmednagar Kari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Borban Ghargaon, Ghargaon, Sangamner, Ahmednagar-422605 Maharashtra Pan-Aaeas8066K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

hearing shall be given 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 in ITA No. 2087/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. So far as penalty appeal in ITA 2089/PUN/2025

Bharatmata Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2, Satara

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

ITA 2067/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2067/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Vs Ito, Ward-2 Bharatmata Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Satara Maryadit, Cs No. 142/143 Sadar Bazar, Satara-415001 Maharashtra Pan-Aagab5779G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Deepa Khare (virtual)For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

assistance of condonation application alongwith affidavit has successfully 2 demonstrated that the delay is not intentional and the same has arised due to reasonable cause including the medical problems faced by the key person managing the affairs of the assessee trust. After hearing both the sides and considering the facts ... 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. 6. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Pune

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 1808/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1807 & 1808/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Vs Ito, Ward-2 Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, Pandharpur C/O Kapil Horane, Chandrabhaga Ghat, Pandharpur, Solapur- 413304 Maharashtra Pan-Aadph0707N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhoorFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

hearing shall be given to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. The impugned orders are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits in ITA No. 1807/PUN/2025 and ITA No. 1808/PUN/2025

Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Pandharpur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 1807/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1807 & 1808/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Vs Ito, Ward-2 Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, Pandharpur C/O Kapil Horane, Chandrabhaga Ghat, Pandharpur, Solapur- 413304 Maharashtra Pan-Aadph0707N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhoorFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

hearing shall be given to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. The impugned orders are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits in ITA No. 1807/PUN/2025 and ITA No. 1808/PUN/2025

Sidhhivinayak Gramin Sahkari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1536/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1536/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vs Ito, Ward-1(4) Sidhhivinayak Gramin Sahkari Pat Sanstha Kolhapur Maryadit, A/P Kodoli Panhala, Kolhapur-416231 Maharashtra Pan-Aaeas6278B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

hearing shall be given 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. 5. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Jiyauddin Khan, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO 1(4), Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 139/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Jiyauddin Khan V. Ito-1(4) Bhitauli Bazar, Maharjganj, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharajganj-273302. Maharajganj, Maharajganj-273301. Pan:Bafpk3621P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 69A

submissions and merits of the case. Page 2 of 8 5. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case, That the appellant had reasonable cause for non-appearance on the scheduled hearing date, which was duly communicated to the CIT(A) office through a written request seeking extension

Punam Sinha, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 298/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Punam Sinha, Near Shiv Mandir, Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Khajpura, Patna-800014,Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 06.06.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -2/11391/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 301 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That At The Time Of Ld Cit(A) Passed The Order, The Assessee Was Suffering From Spine Diseases & Also Eye Disease I.E. Glucoma. Due To This Fact, She Was Not Unable To Look After Her Day-To-Day Business. It Is Also Stated That Assessee Being A Lady Was Not Conversant With P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53A

days may kindly be condoned. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation petition. 3. After considering the condonation petition, I am satisfied that there was reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time and, hence, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Facts in brief