← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai. vs. M/S. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 42/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Caterpillar India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Income Tax, Taramani Road, Vs. Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai – 600 113. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 717/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Caterpillar India Private Tax, Limited, 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle- 3(3), V. Chennai – 600 034. Taramani Road, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. By Virtual ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Dated 07.03.2023. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For :-2-: It(Tp) A. No:42 /Chny/2023 & The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

there is a delay of 02 days in appeal filed by the revenue. After hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the revenue in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

Sunil Babubhai Mehta, Kandivali West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

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

ITA 1760/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarsunil Babaubhai Mehta Income-Tax, Officer 32, Shreeejikutir Ram Gully, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, S.V. Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai- 400020 Mumabi 400067 Pan: Aafpm3591B Appellant Respondednt Assessee Represented By Shri. Gaurav Sarda, Ca Department Represented By Shri. Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025 Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Ex-Parte Order Of Learned Cit(A)/Nfac, Dated 27/12/2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Rival Submissions Of Both The Parties Have Been Heard & Record Perused. The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. Ar) Of The Assessee Submit That Ld. Cit(A) Passed Ex-Parte Order Without Giving Fair & Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee. The Assesse In Response To Various Notices Issued By Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Act, Sought Adjournment For Preparation Of Written Submission. The Ld. Cit(A) Despite Acknowledging Such Request For Adjournment Dismissed The Appeal In Ex Parte Order By Holding That Assessee Has Not Filed Any Submission & Evidences In The Course Of Appellate Proceeding. The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submit That Assessee Is A Chartered Accountant By Professions & Interested In Perusing His Appeal On Merit. As There Is No Adjudication Of Various Grounds Of Appeal

Section 143(3)Section 250

para 6.2. of impugned order. The assessee chose to not file any written submission rather short adjournment. The assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for non-filing written submission. The assessee deserves no further opportunity and the appeal may be dismissed. 4. We have considered the rival submission both