← 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

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 173/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 271B

justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 172/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 271B

justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 171/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 271B

justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed

M/S. Kumbaleri Sands, Wayand vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kalpetta

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

ITA 16/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Hrithwik D.N., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

appeal of the 2 ITA No.16 & 37/Coch/2025. Kumbaleri Sands. assessee on the ground that the reasons given by the assessee are not constituting reasonable cause. It is the contention of the assessee that the delay of 1428 days included the Covid period of two years and if one would exclude ... have seen the reasons given by the assessee for the period of delay before the CIT(A) and convinced that there was reasonable cause for the delay in as much as the order of the AO was not served on the assessee in time, this averment has not been refuted

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 981/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 980/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 979/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 978/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 977/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 976/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed

The Kasargod District Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kasaragod vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 798/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.George Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed

Bethany Navajeevan Province, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 661/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.P.V.Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 12A

reasons given by the assessee with respect to the delay in the filing of appeal are too general in nature and do not constitute reasonable cause . These types of reasons have been strongly criticized by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders reported

Bethany Navajeevan Province, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Trivandrum

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 657/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.P.V.Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 12A

reasons given by the assessee with respect to the delay in the filing of appeal are too general in nature and do not constitute reasonable cause . These types of reasons have been strongly criticized by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders reported

Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 1081/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1081/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sh. Nishant Goyal, Ito, बनाम House No.3135, Ward-2(1), Sector 20-D, Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh 160020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aqmpg0609D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Rahul Khurana, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

that proper explanation and reasons for delay have not been given. Therefore, I am of the view that in the absence of existence of reasonable cause and also in the absence of proper explanation and reasons, without being supported by proper evidence, the appeal filed by the assessee late

Balasaheb Kushaba Nivangune, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (2), Pune

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

ITA 2791/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Balasaheb Kushaba Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. Ninvangune, S. No.41, Plot No.41, Jadhav Nagar, Vadagaon Budruk, Pune- 411041. Pan : Afmpn4866Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 28.10.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 19.12.2019 By The Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.12,69,000/- On Account Of Money Deposited In Cash In Bank Account During

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

submit other details, if needed necessary, in support of grounds of appeal. The assessee should avoid taking unnecessary adjournment 5 unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Mira Ghosh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2635/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2635/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mira Ghosh,………………………..………..…………Appellant 22/H/113, Raja Manindra Road, Paikpara, Kolkata-700037 [Pan:Avkpg1522G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 140Section 142(1)Section 68Section 69A

submissions made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal saying that the assessee 2 Mira Ghosh failed to establish the reasonable cause to condone the delay of 12 days. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. 5. I have heard both

Dream Residency Twins, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-32, Kolkata

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

ITA 2588/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2588/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dream Residency Twins,……………..…………Appellant 44/2A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700013 [Pan:Aagfd1014M] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,……...Respondent Circle-32, Kolkata, Income Tax Officer, 10B, Sir William Jones Sarani, Middleton Row, Park Street Area, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 81BSection 81B(10)

After considering the submissions made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal saying that the assessee failed to establish the reasonable cause to condone the delay of more than 22 months. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised the following

Achakalira Monappa Uthaiah, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 477/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 139Section 234Section 271ASection 69A

justified in refusing to condone the delay of 343 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause as explained in the petition for condonation of delay filed before the learned CIT[A] under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant ... justified in refusing to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause as explained in the petition for condonation of delay filed before the learned CIT[A] under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

Achakalira Monappa Uthaiah, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 476/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 139Section 234Section 271ASection 69A

justified in refusing to condone the delay of 343 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause as explained in the petition for condonation of delay filed before the learned CIT[A] under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant ... justified in refusing to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause as explained in the petition for condonation of delay filed before the learned CIT[A] under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

Clifford Dominic Colaco, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Natioanal Faceless Assessment Unit

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

ITA 1111/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1111/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-20) Clifford Dominic Colaco V/S. Assessment Unit B 521, Ganesh Darshan, बिधम Umarkhade Road, Chinch Bunder, Maharashtra- 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpc8794L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Mr. Chanchal GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

with an affidavit explaining the circumstances resulting in the delay. After perusal of the same, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing of appeal, hence, the same is hereby condoned. 6. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that all the three