#Section 250

The ITAT Kolkata has ruled that the death of a taxpayer’s appointed tax consultant, leading to delayed filing of an appeal, qualifies as a reasonable cause for condonation under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. This sets a critical precedent for taxpayers relying on professional representatives, affirming that administrative failures by third-party agents, beyond the assessee’s control, cannot be penalized as negligence.

ITAT Mumbai condoned a 10-day delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing that procedural technicalities cannot override substantial justice where the assessee demonstrated genuine hardship (portal unavailability and loss of physical copy) and no prejudice to the Revenue. The ruling reaffirms that co-operative credit societies are entitled to Section 80P(2) deductions on their entire income, including disallowed provisions for bad debts.

ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that denying a taxpayer's request for a video hearing in faceless appeal proceedings violates principles of natural justice, setting aside the reassessment order. The decision reinforces that procedural fairness under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act requires adjudicating authorities to consider alternative hearing formats, impacting all faceless assessment appeals.

ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that natural justice mandates restoring an appeal dismissed due to procedural negligence, provided the appellant pays costs. The decision reinforces that tax appeals cannot be dismissed ex-parte without affording a hearing, even in cases of oversight, balancing fairness with accountability for delays.

ITAT Pune rules that ex-parte appellate orders under Section 250(6) must contain reasoned decisions on merits, not mere dismissal for non-prosecution. Key implications for tax litigation.