“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

Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Sahajpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Jabalpur

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 149/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

under: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in passing exparte order without appreciating that appellant was prevented with reasonable cause in not filing the response as society was not aware of fixation of case and society was at remote area and are not conversant ... appeal.” 1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in passing exparte order without appreciating that appellant was prevented with reasonable cause in not filing the response as society was not aware of fixation of case and society was at remote area and are not conversant

Nagendra Pratap Singh, Singrauli vs. ITO, Singrauli

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

ITA 195/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Nagendra Pratap Singh V. Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S. Prem Kanta Indane, Itd, Singrauli-486788 Old Dudhichua Road, Singrauli- 486788. Tan/Pan:Asaps8528D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Cit(Dr-1) Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. CIT(DR-1)

Section 144Section 148Section 148A

rebutted by the Revenue. Under these facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by “reasonable cause” for Page 3 of 6 not filing the present appeal in time. We, therefore, condone the delay of 10 days and admit the appeal

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of the case in making / confirming Penalty of Rs.50000/-. The appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in not making compliance of notice u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1). The penalty of Rs. 50000/- should be quashed in toto. 4. That ... therefore, on the assessee who seeks condonation of delay to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and in the absence of such reasonable cause, the condonation of delay could not be granted to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals against the assessment orders

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

Chaitanya Bhrathi, Vizianagaram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 179/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2025-26) Vs. Chaitanya Bharathi Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions Ward Plot No. 02, Naidu Residency Hyderabad C.B. Colony, Cantonment Vizianagaram – 535003 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaatc4803D] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ca : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

insertion of the said proviso vide Finance Act, 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024, the Pr. CIT or the CIT is empowered to ascertain whether any reasonable cause for delay in filing the application while considering the petition filed for condonation of delay. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order ... filed beyond the time allowed (in sub clauses (i) to (v), 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”. 10. Thus

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 726/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 154Section 234ASection 80T

appeal matters narrating all the above facts then he has advised to file the appeal with the condonation application as there is sufficient or reasonable cause and there is prima facie a strong case in our favour. 4 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO 4. That thereafter my counsel has started

Shri Hari Narain Yadav, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(1)(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 683/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrashri Hari Narain Yadav V. Income Tax Officer, 51/108, Halsey Road, Kanpur – Ward-1(1)(5) 208001. Kanpur-208001. Pan:Aaupy5211H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272(1)(d)Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Further, there is no material on Page 3 of 3 record to show that the penalty is without “reasonable cause” within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is found that neither ... record to establish that the assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid notice dated 14.08.2019 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, without “reasonable cause”. Further, on perusal of record, it is found in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the Assessing Officer has failed to make

G.S.Express Pvt.Ltd, Lucknow vs. DCIT-CC-2, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is held to be partly allowed

ITA 633/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Private Ltd., C-877 Vs. The D. Commissioner Of Income Mahanagar, Lucknow Tax, P.K. Complex, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aaccg5655J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Imposing A Penalty Under Section 271B On 29.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Considering That The Show Cause Notice U/S 271B Of 1. T. Act Dated 31.12.2019, Did Not Specify That Whether The Penalty Is For Failure To Get Accounts Audited Or Failure To Furnish The Report & Thus Non Striking Of Irrelevant Clause Renders The Penalty Notice Invalid As Also The Consequential Penalty Order As Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Above 2-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- U/S 2718 Of 1. T. Act, Without Appreciating That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Delay In Audit & Obtaining Report U/S 44Ab Of It Act As Due To Search & Seizure On 01.02.2018 The Entire Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing. 3-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Did Not Appreciate That Books Of Accounts & Related Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing & Only After Obtaining Copy Of Seized Documents

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

facts and in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 2718 of 1. T. Act, without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause for delay in Audit and obtaining Report u/s 44AB of IT Act as due to search and seizure on 01.02.2018 the entire records were ... conducted, therefore, the delay in submitting the report u/s 44AB of IT Act was beyond control of the Assessee. Thus there was a reasonable cause of the same. 4 That the return filed u/s 139 of 1. T. Act along with audit report u/s 44AB

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/HYD/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

case, the imposition of penalty was wholly unjustified. 11. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act for accepting cash transactions, as the real estate business inherently involves immediate cash dealings due to market practices

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 576/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

Nancy Traders, Ulhasnagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 4403/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Nancy Traders, Dy. Cit Circle 1, A-25/145 Kala Palace, Ground Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Nagar, Madhuban Hotel Road C Block, Vs. Swanand Colony, Gandhar Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-421001. Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan-421301. Pan No. Aagfn 3518 E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sunil M. Makhija

thus contended that the adjournments were sought due It was thus contended that the adjournments were sought due to unavoidable and reasonable causes, and that the learned CIT(A), to unavoidable and reasonable causes, and that the learned CIT(A), to unavoidable and reasonable causes, and that the learned ... representative, and subsequent illness. In our considered view, these constituted ness. In our considered view, these constituted ness. In our considered view, these constituted reasonable causes warranting grant of further opportunity. By reasonable causes warranting grant of further opportunity. By reasonable causes warranting grant of further opportunity. By refusing such

Getinge India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4341/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 234Section 234CSection 250Section 270ASection 40A(7)Section 43A

initiated the penalty proceedings the assessee came to know of the appellate order being passed. Accordingly the ld AR submitted that there is a reasonable cause the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and prayed that the same may be condoned. 4. The ld DR on the other ... Form 35 since he is not aware of the change in the email id. Accordingly the ld DR submitted that there is no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record

Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2921/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Nagpal, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 56(2)

therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 26-07-2022 is invalid and bad in law. 2) The Appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time and therefore prays your Honour to condone the delay in presenting the appeal and admit

Mohit Satsangi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-16(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1362/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Satsangi, Dcit, 24Th Floor, E-2 Block, Circle-16(1), Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Vs. Delhi. Nehru Marg, Delhi-110017. Pan-Awmps2265D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Basant Kumar, Adv. & Ms. Sabhya Saachi Sharma, Ar Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./ Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 22.01.2025 In Appeal No. Addl./Jcit-(A) Mumbai- 10036/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Delayed By 143 Days Before The Ld. Cit(A), For Which Delay Condonation Petition Was Also Filed, Wherein It Was Stated By The Mohit Satsangi Vs. Acit Assessee That He Had Filed Rectification Applications On Two Occasions Before The Ao For Rectification Of The Order, However, Both These Applications Were Dismissed, Therefore, The Assessee Had With No Other Alternate But To File The Appeal Before Cit(A) & In This Process The Same Was Got Delayed By 143 Days. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Find Any Force In The Reasons Given By The Assessee & Not Admitted The Appeal Of The Assessee By Not Condoning The Delay. 3. Before Us, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Delay Is Bonafide & There Was Reasonable Cause As Assessee Was Exploring The Alternate Remedy & Acted In Terms Of Legal Advice Therefore, The Appeal Was Got Delayed. He Also Placed Reliance On The Following Judgments: -Subhash Malik Vs. Cit 325 Itr 243 (All) -Sps Educational & Welfare Society Versus Dcit-Dpc [2022 (9) Tmi 87-

Section 250

assessee by not condoning the delay. 3. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay is bonafide and there was reasonable cause as assessee was exploring the alternate remedy and acted in terms of legal advice therefore, the appeal was got delayed. He also placed reliance

Sh. Inder Singh (Deceased) Through L/H Smt. Swaran Kaur, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-5, Yamuna Nagar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 94/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 94/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Inder Singh (Deceased) The Ito, Through L.H. Smt. Swaran Kaur, Vs Ward – 5, Village – Fazalpur, Po-Sadaura, Yamuna Nagar. Teh-Jagadhari, Distt.Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cxxps1419P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Vibhuti Thakur, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Vibhuti Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 271(1)(b)

Swaran Kaur, widow of late Shri Inder Singh and the explanation filed by the assessee, we are satisfied that assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the appeal well in time. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide it on merit

Pinkal Sureshkumar Kothari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1303/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1303/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Pinkal Sureshkumar Income Tax Officer Kothari Ward-5(2)(1), Vs. 4, Nemrajul Flat, Ahmedabad Navavikas Gruh Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amlpk3944L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parth Mehta, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 250(2)

delaying appellate proceedings. Moreover, Supreme Court has in catena of decisions held that Delay in filing appeal shall be condoned if there is a reasonable cause. Furthermore, Apex Court has in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353 has elaborately held as under; 1. Ordinarily

Vidvata Interview Makers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1237/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Vidvata Interview Makers Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd, 902, Shyam Kunj, Gurgaon Plot No.26, J.B. Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400059 Pan No.Aaccv2915J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manish Rastogi, Advocate Sh. Uma Shankar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 249(2)Section 250

dated 26-12-2024. 2. For that the NFAC erred in failing to appreciate that the assessee was prevented from reasonable cause in filing the appeal within the time prescribed in section 249(2) of the Act, which is wrong illegal and unjustified in the facts and circumstances

The Kattoor Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 561/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed limit. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel