← 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

Allahabad Bank Now Indian Bank, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS Circle), Panchkula

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 292/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 201Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

delay in filing appeal is intentional and wrong and illegal casual approach of appellant. Thus order passed by CIT(A) ignoring correct facts and reasonable cause is totally wrong and illegal. 6. That the order passed by learned CIT (Appeals) is not a speaking and reasoned order rejecting the appeal ... explained by the appellant doesn't appear to be reasonable and sufficient. The language used in section 249(3) is "sufficient cause" and not "reasonable cause". 'Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether

Sbpl Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 685/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.685/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sbpl Infrastructure Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaccs9014M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 16/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13.02.2024 & Pertains To A.Y.2014-15. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That Shri Manoj Sharma, Chief Financial Officer Of The Appellant Company, Who Was Entrusted With The Job Of Looking

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 14A

assessee could file appeal before the Tribunal on 17.07.2024 with the delay of 94 days. We find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee to file the appeal belatedly, therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 4. The assessee

Haridas, Pilibhit vs. ITO Range-2(4), Pilibhit

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 402/LKW/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Haridas V. The Income Tax Officer 418, Amaria, Sitarganj Marg Range 2(4) Pilibhit (U.P) Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Apqph6916R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.01.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Air Information Received In The Office Of The Income Tax Department, It Was Noted That The Assessee Had Deposited A Sum Of Rs.12,01,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148

independent enquiry/ application of mind has been made by Ld. A. O., hence the subsequent proceedings are also invalid. 2. That there was a reasonable cause for noncompliance as the Counsel Late Advocate Satendra Kumar Gupta who is looking after the Income Tax matter and keeping the e-profile