← 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

Sachin Jadhav, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Pune

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

ITA 941/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.941/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sachin Jadhav, Vs Ito Ward-2(2), Row House No.2, Omkar Pune Apartments, Vidnyan Nagar, Bavdhan, Khurd, Pune-411021 Maharashtra Pan-Asypj2913P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sachin JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

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. 8. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Tejashree Atul Patil, Pune vs. Pr.CIT - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 927/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

right to file the appeal against the order of ld.PCIT 2 Tejashree Atul Patil u/s.263 of the Act. Considering it to be a ‘reasonable cause’ and that the assessee would not have gained by delaying the filing of appeal, the delay of 237 days is condoned in light of judgments

Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade, Pune vs. Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 687/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ravi PahlaniFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 144Section 250

merits against various additions totalling to Rs.5,11,644/-, assessee has also raised a ground challenging the impugned order stating that in spite of reasonable cause ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 3134 days and dismissed the appeal in limine. 2 Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade ... days. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee taking us through paper book running into 34 pages has successfully demonstrated that sufficient and reasonable cause prevented the assessee from filing appeal in the prescribed time limit before CIT(A). We further observe that assessee would not have gained with

Manoj Ramchandra Jadhav, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

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

ITA 1728/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

condoned. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the condonation application, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the assessee has not gained from filing the appeal with a delay ... Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal

Ajeenckya Fattesing Jagtap, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1645/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ajay RanderFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 143(3)Section 250

case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the assessee has not gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore ... assessee in the set aside proceedings. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal

Prithiviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sangli

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

ITA 1607/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

delay may be condoned. 4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the assessee has not gained from filing the appeal with

Durga Srinivasarao Yadlapalli, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 355/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 355/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Durga Srinivasarao Yadlapalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Anqpy8915K Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Mv Prasad, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 04/09/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 518 days, we are of the view that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause that prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 518 days and proceed

Sampathi Venkata Subbaiah, Tirupati vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Tirupati

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

ITA 455/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Aluru Venkata Rao, Sr. AR

above medical grounds, he could not file appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit and since, there is a ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ and the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee which prevented the assessee to file the instant appeal before the Tribunal, the delay

Sunku Surendra, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being barred by limitation

ITA 1026/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1026/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sunku Surendra Vs. Income Tax Officer Nellore Ward – 1 Pan:Aysps4353G Nellore (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Vvsc Muralidhar Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/02/2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Tirupati, For The A.Y.2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2235 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Was Suffering From Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri VVSC Muralidhar RaoFor Respondent: : Shri Suresh Babu KN, Sr.AR

other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not explained any reasonable cause for such an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Further, the assessee admitted the discrepancies in the income and conceded to the addition made by the Assessing ... underhand way by filing the appeal beleatedly. Therefore, for taking a lenient view to interpret the expression “sufficient cause” there must be a reasonable cause to justify the delay particularly, when there is an inordinate delay. We cannot overlook the apparent unacceptable and unsatisfactory reasons explained by the assessee when

Kotha Kanthaiah, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1259/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kotha Kanthaiah Vs. Income Tax Officer Karimnagar Ward-2 Pan : Aqbpk7356C Karimnagar

For Appellant: Shri Lakshmi KanthFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151A

from 25.10.2024 to 15.11.2024. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances as explained by the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hence, the delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal is condoned

Gomathi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Ward 9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1504/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Gomathi, Dcit, No. 13/51, Kongu Salai, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 9(1). Egmore, Chennai. Chennai –600 008. [Pan:Asmpg-0601-K] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. Pradeep, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

delay be condoned. After considering the petition 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

Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 547/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing this appeal within the prescribed time. 8.1 While considering a similar issue the Apex Court ... whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay

K N Dileep, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagar

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

ITA 1346/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Vijay Simha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing this appeal within the prescribed time. K.N. Dileep, Bangalore Page 6 of 11 4.1 While considering ... whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay

Razaq Liyakhath Ali, Channagiri vs. ITO-Ward-2(1) Davanagere, Davanagere

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1339/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Razaq Liyakhath Ali, Vs. Ito, Kouzer Masjid Circle Fort Road, Ward – 2(1), Channagiri, Davangere. Davangere – 577 213. Pan : Acepl 3149 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sachin, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sachin, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

submissions made before the lower authorities and he has filed the written synopsis. In addition to the above, he submitted that the assessee had reasonable cause for not complying with the provision of section 44AB of the Act within the specified due date and assessee was advised by the doctor ... which is casual certificate, there is no registration number and there is no follow up action to prove ill health. Therefore there is no reasonable cause to the assessee. He must be aware about income tax proceedings like filing of return of income because his turnover is more than

Worthwhile Future Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4190/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nirav ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR
Section 12ASection 253Section 253(5)Section 80G

automatic. Unless facts and materials are brought on record to establish that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine and reasonable cause, delay cannot be condoned. Parties before the court cannot claim a vested right for condonation of delay. 8. Though, we respectfully agree with the ratio

Worthwhile Future Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4189/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nirav ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR
Section 12ASection 253Section 253(5)Section 80G

automatic. Unless facts and materials are brought on record to establish that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine and reasonable cause, delay cannot be condoned. Parties before the court cannot claim a vested right for condonation of delay. 8. Though, we respectfully agree with the ratio

Vinod Kumar, Firozabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(2), Firozabad

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

ITA 236/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144

Revenue and gone through the condonation of delay application filed by the assessee. 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 of the assessee

The Chimna Agri. Ser Vice Society Ltd., Punjab vs. Jao Income Tax Officer, ITO, Ward-1, Jagraon, Punjab

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

ITA 423/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 422/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Chimna Co-Op. Agri. Jao. बनाम Service Society Ltd., Income Tax Officer Vpo Chimna, Jagraon, Ward 1, Vs. Ludhiana. 141011 Jagraon "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaat4706D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

hearing and, as such, the appellant was 3 423-424-Chd-2025 The Chimna Agri Service Society Ltd., Ludhiana prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for filing any submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. That notwithstanding the above grounds of appeal, the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer ... counsel for his Income Tax matters, who did not intimate him about the hearing and, as such, the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for filing any submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. That notwithstanding the above grounds of appeal, the penalty as levied

The Chimna Co-Op Agri. Service Society Ltd., Punjab vs. Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jagraon, Punjab

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

ITA 422/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 422/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Chimna Co-Op. Agri. Jao. बनाम Service Society Ltd., Income Tax Officer Vpo Chimna, Jagraon, Ward 1, Vs. Ludhiana. 141011 Jagraon "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaat4706D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

hearing and, as such, the appellant was 3 423-424-Chd-2025 The Chimna Agri Service Society Ltd., Ludhiana prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for filing any submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. That notwithstanding the above grounds of appeal, the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer ... counsel for his Income Tax matters, who did not intimate him about the hearing and, as such, the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for filing any submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. That notwithstanding the above grounds of appeal, the penalty as levied

Punit Ashokkumar Thakkar, Vadodara vs. I.T.O. Ward 3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 250/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Raval, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250

250/Ahd/2025 [Punit Ashokkumar Thakkar vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 3 – 4. Having considered the application filed by the assessee, we do not find any reasonable cause adduced by the assessee for the delay. What emanates from the entire explanation of the assessee and his Consultant, is that both of them ... filing the appeal in time, completely attributing the delay to his Consultant, who in any case as we have noted has not given any reasonable cause for the delay. For the aforestated reason we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the present appeal. Moreover, we have