← 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

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 2425/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

Yash Mining Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2524/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2524/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yash Mining Pvt. Ltd.…... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 71 Canning Street 5Th Floor, Room No.512A, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaacy4989R] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 30.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 194 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S 139(1) Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,470/-. In The Case Of The Assessee, An Information Was Received That The Assessee Company Was One Of The

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 68

filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause and the delay was not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case

Jayashree and Company, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3350/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3349 & 3350/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Jayashree & Company, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1-B, Kumar Nagar West, Ward 1(2), Valayangadu, Tirupur 641 603. Tiruppur. [Pan:Aaefj4555F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 & 14.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2018-19 Under Sections 271(1)(B) & 271(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT
Section 142(1)Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)

imposed penalty of ₹. 10,000/- for each default totalling to ₹. 20,000/-. He further submits that the assessee has no reasonable cause for not appearing on the date of hearing fixed before the Assessing Officer and thus, prayed to reject the prayer of the ld. AR. 9. We have heard ... parties, considered the submissions of ld. AR and the ld. DR and perused the material on record. We find that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under

Jayashree and Company, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3349/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3349 & 3350/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Jayashree & Company, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1-B, Kumar Nagar West, Ward 1(2), Valayangadu, Tirupur 641 603. Tiruppur. [Pan:Aaefj4555F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 & 14.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2018-19 Under Sections 271(1)(B) & 271(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT
Section 142(1)Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)

imposed penalty of ₹. 10,000/- for each default totalling to ₹. 20,000/-. He further submits that the assessee has no reasonable cause for not appearing on the date of hearing fixed before the Assessing Officer and thus, prayed to reject the prayer of the ld. AR. 9. We have heard ... parties, considered the submissions of ld. AR and the ld. DR and perused the material on record. We find that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under