https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782016 ITAT condoned a delay of 496 days in filing the appeal, holding that non-intimation by the tax consultant regarding the NFAC order under s. 250 constituted reasonable cause for delay. On merits, ITAT noted that the AO had already rejected the books of account and estimated income from liquor business. It held that, after such rejection, the AO was not entitled to make further additions under s. 68 on account of unexplained investment or other items. The reassessment additions were therefore unsustainable, and the AO was directed to delete them. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 10:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782016 ITAT condoned a delay of 496 days in filing the appeal, holding that non-intimation by the tax consultant regarding the NFAC order under s. 250 constituted reasonable cause for delay. On merits, ITAT noted that the AO had already rejected the books of account and estimated income from liquor business. It held that, after such rejection, the AO was not entitled to make further additions under s. 68 on account of unexplained investment or other items. The reassessment additions were therefore unsustainable, and the AO was directed to delete them. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782016