← 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

Rmcana India Foundation, Kakinada vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 197/VIZ/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.196 & 197/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Rmcana India Foundation Vs. Commissioner Of Income East Godavari Tax (Exemption) Pan:Aamcr3582K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 12Section 12ASection 80G

after the insertion of the said proviso vide Finance Act, 2024 w.e.f. 1/10/2024, the Pr. CIT or the CIT ought to have considered the reasonable cause for delay in filing the application and condone such delay. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned orders were passed ... filed beyond the time allowed (in sub clauses (i) to (v), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time”. 6. Thus

Rmcana India Foundation, Kakinada vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 196/VIZ/2025[2024-25 ]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 May 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.196 & 197/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Rmcana India Foundation Vs. Commissioner Of Income East Godavari Tax (Exemption) Pan:Aamcr3582K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 12Section 12ASection 80G

after the insertion of the said proviso vide Finance Act, 2024 w.e.f. 1/10/2024, the Pr. CIT or the CIT ought to have considered the reasonable cause for delay in filing the application and condone such delay. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned orders were passed ... filed beyond the time allowed (in sub clauses (i) to (v), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time”. 6. Thus

Kothapalli Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Bapulapadu Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being barred by limitation

ITA 246/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.246/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kothapalli Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Agricultural Cooperative Ward(1) Credit Society Limited Gudivada Krishna Distt Pan:Aacak1455G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Subramanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 730 Days In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri C Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Kothapally Agricultural Coop Credit Society Ltd explain the cause of delay. The learned AR has also not explained any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay of 730 days in filing the present appeal. Therefore, when the assessee has not explained any cause, much less a sufficient cause for the delay