← 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

M/S P.N. Gadgil & Sons, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 1921/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1921/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. P. N. Gadgil & Sons, Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Pune. Abhiruchi Mall, 4Th Floor, 59C Sinhagad Road, Pune- 411041. Pan : Aanfp4476C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. R. Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Erred In Confirming Penalty Of Rs.23,20,000/- Levied Under Section 272B(2). 2) The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Erred In Sustaining The Penalty At Rs.23,20,000/- When There Was Only One Default & As Such Penalty Could At The Must Be Sustained At Rs.10,000/- Only. 3) The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Even Though There Was A Reasonable Cause For Assessee'S Failure To Obtain Pan Of Its Retail Customers. 4) The Penalty Levied Be Cancelled Or Reduced To Rs. 10,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133ASection 139ASection 139A(5)(c)Section 272Section 272BSection 272B(2)

must be sustained at Rs.10,000/- only. 3) The learned CIT (A) NFAC DELHI erred in sustaining the penalty even though there was a reasonable cause for assessee's failure to obtain PAN of its retail customers. 4) The penalty levied be cancelled or reduced ... 272B and accordingly the DCIT, Circle-6, Pune initiated penalty proceedings u/s 272B of the IT Act. The assessee explained that it had reasonable cause for its failure as the requirement for obtaining & informing the department of the PAN was introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and thus the financial year

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2436/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2013-14 & 2013-14 Durga Kailas Gupta, V The Income Tax Officer, New Janta Building, S G.No.425, P.No.5, Chalisgaon Phata, Maharashtra – 423203. Pan: Alapg0234F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Bunch Of Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For The Assessment Years Referred Above. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Therefore, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Order.

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

looking after the tax work of the assessee, the instant appeal could not be filed in time and considering it to be a reasonable cause, we condone the delay and admit all the four appeals for adjudication. 2. At the outset of hearing, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2435/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2013-14 & 2013-14 Durga Kailas Gupta, V The Income Tax Officer, New Janta Building, S G.No.425, P.No.5, Chalisgaon Phata, Maharashtra – 423203. Pan: Alapg0234F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Bunch Of Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For The Assessment Years Referred Above. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Therefore, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Order.

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

looking after the tax work of the assessee, the instant appeal could not be filed in time and considering it to be a reasonable cause, we condone the delay and admit all the four appeals for adjudication. 2. At the outset of hearing, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2427/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2013-14 & 2013-14 Durga Kailas Gupta, V The Income Tax Officer, New Janta Building, S G.No.425, P.No.5, Chalisgaon Phata, Maharashtra – 423203. Pan: Alapg0234F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Bunch Of Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For The Assessment Years Referred Above. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Therefore, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Order.

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

looking after the tax work of the assessee, the instant appeal could not be filed in time and considering it to be a reasonable cause, we condone the delay and admit all the four appeals for adjudication. 2. At the outset of hearing, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that