← 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

Palam Rural Centre, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1560/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 [Arising In Ita No.: 1560/Chny/2025] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Palam Rural Centre, The Asst. Commissioner Of Pethampalayam, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Veerapandi S.O., Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 641 605. [Pan: Aaatp-2929-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Edser Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Edser Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12ASection 139

filed Form 10B. The Court held that the error on the part of auditor cannot be rejected but should be accepted as a reasonable cause shown by the trust management. In that case also, Petitioner did not suo moto realize its mistake and filed a condonation request only after Centralised ... Covid 19 impact was also there. Apart from that the auditor of the assessee was under medical emergency and hence the assessee had a reasonable cause to file the appeal belatedly by 1,551 days. In view of the above reasons, we condone the delay in filing the appeal

Bandan Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 271/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Bandan Mohanty Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Plot-899, Jharpada, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar, 751006 Pan/Gir No. Afmpm 7898 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 22.4.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar- 1/14864/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 304 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 28.4.2025 Supported By An Affidavit Stating That The Order Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Dated 22.4.2024 Was Downloaded P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 69

opposed the condonation petition. 3. After hearing the parties and perusing the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the time and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case

Debendranath Panda, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward 1 (1), Cuttack

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

ITA 188/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2016-17 Debendranath Debendranath Panda, Panda, M/S. M/S. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack 1), Cuttack S.N.Agency, S.N.Agency, Plot Plot No.62, No.62, Nayabazar, Nayabazar, Mahanadi Mahanadi Vihar, Vihar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Agkpp 3597 P (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Natabar Panda, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30 /06/202 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/202 /2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. The Order Of Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra Dated 22.2.2024 In Appeal No. Appeal No. Cit(A), Cuttack/10177/2018 10177/2018-19 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17. 17. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 321 The Appeal Is Time Barred By 321 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Supported With Affidavit Condonation Petition Supported With Affidavit, Stating That The Assessee The Assessee Was Suffering From Spondylitis Spondylitis With Back Pain & Acute Bronchitis Staring From With Back Pain & Acute Bronchitis Staring From 12.4.2024 To 15.3.2025 12.4.2024 To 15.3.2025 & As Per The Advice Of Consulting Dr Of Consulting Dr. Laxmi Prasad Mohapatra, Prasad Mohapatra, The Assessee Was Under Bed Rest. In His Absence, No The Assessee Was Under Bed Rest. In His Absence, No P A G E 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

opposed the condonation petition. 4. After considering the condonation petition and the rival submissions, I am satisfied that the assessee has reasonable cause for not preferring the appeal within the due date. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 321 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the time

Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No.995, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 62/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kattilkadavu P.O., Karunagappally, Kollam 690542 [Pan: Aabak9297M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04.04.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Return Of Income For 2018-19 Was Filed On 25.01.2019 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The 2 Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Of Rs. 6,38,06,361/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) By Holding That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Bank & Hit By Provisions Of Section 80P(4) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 63Section 64Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

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. We have heard the rival

Pantheerankave Service Co-Operative Bank, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward -2(3), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 368/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pantheerankav Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Olavanna, Kozhikode 673019 [Pan: Aaaap6394F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

evidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion 3 Pantheerankav Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 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. 6. We have heard the rival