“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

Lalitha, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 3198/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3198/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Lalitha, Income Tax Officer, #1, Kulakarai Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-8(5) Poonamallee Chennai. Pan: Antpl-8662-P

For Appellant: Mr.Anandd Babunath, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 250

demanding tax liability against assessment. 3. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal

Kalaiselvi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 3196/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3196/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt.Kalaiselvi, Income Tax Officer, #1, Kulakarai Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-8(5) Poonamallee-600 056. Chennai. Pan: Ebcpk-1786-C

For Appellant: Mr.Anandd Babunath, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 250

Capco Finance and Investment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on

ITA 44/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 249(2)Section 271FSection 69

whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate, when the reason stated by the assessee was reasonable cause for not able to file the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) within the period of limitation. The cause for the delay therefore deserves to be considered ... when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay

Infrasructure Services, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 33(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 6625/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

stated by the partner of the assessee to seek condonation of delay before this Tribunal is whether sufficient and whether, there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation under the statute. In the present case in hand, the assessee explained the delay ... whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not able to file the appeals within the period of limitation. The cause for the delay therefore deserves to be considered, when there

Dkt Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6569/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was 05.10.2024.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

filing the present appeal. For the reason stated in the above affidavit, we are of the view that the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the present appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Prevision Project Management Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -14(2)(4), Mumubai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 5799/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 147Section 69ASection 69C

have examined the reason stated by the Director of the assessee that caused delay, whether is sufficient and whether, there exists sufficient and reasonable cause, for not presenting the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) within the period of limitation under the statute. In the present case in hand, the assessee explained ... whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate, when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not able to file the appeal within the period of limitation. The cause for the delay therefore deserves to be considered, when there

Ramji Harakchand Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 30(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5362/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Harakchand Shah penalty. The finding of the ld. CIT(A) is completely off tangent wherein, he is discussing the concept of mens rea and reasonable cause u/s.273B which has no relevance in the case of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c). 5. From the perusal of the records, it is seen

Deejay Stocks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4692/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us It Has Been Submitted That In Assessee’S Own Case For The A.Y.2014-15 & 2016-17 Similar Penalty Levied Has Been Deleted By The Tribunal. For The Sake Of Ready Reference The Relevant Finding Reads As Under:

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 273B

noticed issued by the Ld. AO during assessment proceeding. However, the Legislature provides for immunity from levy of penalty wherever there was a reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In other words, section 273B provides for immunity from penalty wherever there ... reasonable cause 3 Deejay Stocks Pvt. Ltd. 5.1. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or guilty of conduct

Loparex Holding Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4813/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 234DSection 270ASection 274

noted that every time the date is granted, it is upon the choice of the assessee and therefore there is no sufficient and reasonable cause to seek adjournment every time the appeal is listed for hearing. Even today on 19/02/2025, the assessee filed letter seeking time by submitting that

Kishorbhai Dhirajlal Champaneri, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1752/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Bhatia, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

mentioned in the preceding part of our order, we are of the considered view that the assessee has been able to give a reasonable cause for not causing appearance before the assessing officer and not being able to produce the necessary documents in support of the source of cash deposits

Sharadbhai Keshavlal Lakhani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1)(Old Ward-7(2)(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1231/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

also because of ill-health the delay in filing the above appeal before Ld. CIT(A). This reason was not found to be a “reasonable cause” to condone the delay, thereby Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without giving proper opportunity of hearing

Laxmibai Rambhau Pathare, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 2395/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 148

affidavit. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for 2 condonation of delay that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within time limit prescribed under the Statute. Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection to the request

Gautam Jayant Sopal, Kolhapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1953/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)

M/S D B Infratech, Mumbai vs. Joint Comm of Income Tax Range 32(1), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6627/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal Be Condoned & The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) Be Set Aside Since The Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Without Examining The Merits Granting One More Opportunity To The Appellant To Make Out His Case Before The Cit(A) On Merits. Explain The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal, The Learned Authorised Representative For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Was Caused On Account Of Inadvertent Mistake Committed By The Employee Of The Company Who Was Tasked With The Job Of Keeping Track Of The Appellate Proceedings Before The Cit(A) & Was Asked To Arrange For Filing Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay of 508 days in filing the present appeal since we are of the view that the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the present appeal before the Tribunal in the prescribed time. Further given the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6505/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

view that the delay in filing of the first appeal as explained by the assessee is on account of a reasonable cause. Accordingly, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits after condoning the delay which

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6504/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6503/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6502/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

M/S. Exhibits India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2481/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2481/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Exhibits India Pvt. Ltd. .……………………………………..….……….Appellant P-496, Keyatala Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aabce1359C] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Jyoti Dugar, 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 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 09.09.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [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 6 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. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Various Grounds But The Primary Issue Under Consideration Is That An Addition Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Act Alleging The Violation Of Provision Of Cash Payment & Whether The Assessment Made U/S 153A R.W.S.

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 40A(3)

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

Unitech Bright Steel Industries, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2818/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2818/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S. Unitech Bright Steel Industries, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.113, Vanagaram Road, Income Tax, Ayyanambakkam, Non-Corporate Circle 8(1), Chennai – 600 095. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. D. Babitha, JCIT

Section 250(6)

averments made in the said petition. Having going through the contents of the affidavit and the application for condoning the delay, we find reasonable cause for condoning the delay and therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR