“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

Ataat Rahat Khan, Gurgaon vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int-Tax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

ITA 1801/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 270ASection 271Section 69

order are passed without giving reasonable and proper opportunity to the Appellant. In any case the Appellant was prevented by sufficient reasonable cause for not filing the details/ explanations/ evidences 11. That, without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case

Sh. Abhay Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 546/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 546/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Abhay Kumar Godha 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar Jaipur - 303 003 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPG 4721K अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR स

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69A

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 5. Thus the delay in filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT is due to a reasonable cause and therefore, the same be condoned and appeal be admitted for hearing for imparting substantial justice. To this effect, the assessee Shri Abhay Kumar Godha

Vikramathithan Selvakumaran Raja, Madurai vs. ACIT, Ncc-1, Madurai

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

ITA 985/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:985/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikramathithan Selvakumaran The Assistant Commissioner Of Raja, Vs. Income Tax, 61/1C, T B Road, Mahaboopalayam, Non-Corp. Circle -1, Madurai – 625 016. Madurai – 625 002. [Pan:Auvps-0301-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Thulsi Ram, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T

Section 143(2)Section 68

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

Kosanam Rama Rao, Guntur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Guntur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 226/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

reported in the return of income, thereby causing no revenue loss to the department is, thus, not relevant in determining if there was reasonable cause, within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act, for his failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS ... This is the rationale behind the said amendment of Section 269SS of the Act. By entering into cash transactions in immoveable property without any reasonable cause, the appellant was acting against the express intention of the Parliament. 5.13 In the case laws relied upon by the appellant, there

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 729/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Lalji Yadav, Vs. Ito-1(2), 3/152A, Vivek Khand, Gomti Lucknow (New) Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.-226010 Pan:Aakpy2220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 272A(1)(D) Levied By The Ito, Ward-9(1)(1), Lucknow Dated 27.01.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Giving Rise To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act, Has Been Set Aside By The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A' Vide Order Dated 13.11.2024 Passed In Ita No. 448/Lkw/2024, Restoring The Matter To The Assessing Officer For Passing The Assessment Order Afresh, The Impugned Order Dated 09.10.2024 Passed By Ld. "Cit(A)" As Well As Penalty Order U/S 272A(1)(D) Do Not Survive & Consequently The Order Passed By The Lower Authorities Deserve To Be Set Aside. 2. Because The Order Appealed Against Is Contrary To Facts, Law & Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

fact of non- compliance to the various notices by the assessee during the assessment period and concluded that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from making compliance to the said notices. It has accordingly remanded the 6 Lalji Yadav A.Y. 2017-18 matter back to the file

Star Organic Foods Inc, Nellore vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 715/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, T Ram PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5Section 69A

importance of limitation provided under various statutes and the discretionary power conferred by the said statute keeping in mind the phrase ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’. 10. In the present case, going by the affidavit filed by the assessee for explaining the reasons, the assessee claims that, it could not file

Govardhana Girishwara Devasthanam Trust, Tirupati vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

ITA 671/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Us:

Section 12Section 12A

made available on the statute a “Proviso” to Section 12A(1)(ac) that formally allows the CIT(Exemption) to condone the delay if reasonable cause is shown, which, thus, renders the application valid and deemed to be filed on time. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1375/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1368/Hyd/2024 To 1373/Hyd/2024 & 1375/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16) Sitarama Rao Avva Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4) Pan : Abspa6536E Hyderabad

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has duly considered the reasons and has given a finding that the assessee has failed to explain any reasonable cause of huge delay of 1039 days in filing the appeal. The Ld.DR has further contended that now the assessee has filed fresh petition for condonation

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1373/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1372/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1371/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1370/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1369/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1368/HYD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Shamsu Ul Zoha Jermain, Coulsdon, United Kingdom vs. Income Tax Officer, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148

deliberate or negligent conduct. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the delay is bonafide and covered by reasonable cause and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. 2.1 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation, submitting that sufficient time had already elapsed ... substantive justice, and denying adjudication on merits merely on technical grounds would ITA No.1125/Hyd/2024 4 cause irreparable prejudice to the assessee, who has shown reasonable cause. Accordingly, the delay of 243 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee

Chadrasekaran, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupur

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

ITA 1439/CHNY/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1439/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246

time of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the assessee had sufficient reasonable cause for the delay caused in the matter. In the interest of justice, we therefore direct the Ld.CIT(A) to readjudicate the matter afresh

Gaud Brahman Sabha, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3256/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

board to all the Trust/Institution to file/re-file their applications under certain conditions. However, the applicant has not been able to show any reasonable cause for delay or to establish that the applicant trust had genuine hardship in filing of the application within the due date. 5. Thus, in view

Rsrg Devbuild P. Ltd, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 4(1), Indore

ITA 6/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274Section 277

issued which could not be complied with because of hospitalisation of the counsel who ultimatly passed away. Since, there was a reasonable cause non compliance and as such the penalty levied may please be cancelled. 2. The Ld. CIT NFAC has erred in maintaining the penalty ... demise of the regular counsel of assessee, Shri Sandeep Deshpande (son of Ld. AR himself). Therefore, Ld. AR submitted that there was a reasonable cause on the part of assessee for occurrence of failure and the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 273B which must be given

Pristine Womens Hospital, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, CC-Kolhapur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 848/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847-848/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2014-15 Vs Acit, Central Circle, Pristine Womens Hospital, Kolhapur 395/2, E Ward Square 9 Building, Next To Basant- Bahar Talkies Assembly Road, Kolhapur-416001 Maharashtra Pan-Aacap7626A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

sent, could not be accessed by the concerned person and due to this reason there was a delay in filing the appeal. Considering the reasonable cause and also taking a liberal approach in the interest of justice and also observing that the delay is not intentional, we respectfully following ... hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals for both the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2016-17 are allowed

Pristine Womens Hospital, Kolhapur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 847/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)