← 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

Sangeeta Pandey, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(4), Lucknow-New

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

ITA 564/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sangeeta Pandey V. The Income Tax Officer House No.88, Majra Andandlok-Ii Ward 1(4) Ganeshpur, Rashmanpur Lucknow - New Chinhat, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Bqepp1354H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vivek Tiwari, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To File The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income. The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Various Details Required For Completing The Assessment. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao, Therefore, Proceeded To Complete The Assessment Under

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Tiwari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

admitting the additional evidence ITA No.564/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 6 u/r.46A, though such documents goes to the root of the case and there exist reasonable cause for not furnishing the documents on assessment record; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1357/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to the condonation of delay and argued that the assessee did not demonstrate any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to the condonation of delay and argued that the assessee did not demonstrate any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1355/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to the condonation of delay and argued that the assessee did not demonstrate any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1354/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to the condonation of delay and argued that the assessee did not demonstrate any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal

Lords Freight (India) Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 5239/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2022-23 Lords Freight (India) Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Arena Space, Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), 10Th& 11Th Floor, 545, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 20, Jvlr, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Majas Bus Depot, M.K. Road, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai. Mumbai. Pan : Aaccl0108M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain For Revenue : Shri Akshay Tapdiya, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-11-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 07-08-2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Vadodara & It Relates To The Assessment Year (Ay.)2022-23. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine, Without Condoning The Delay Of Around Thirty Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A). 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted Thatthe Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) On 26-07-2023 Making Various Adjustments To The Returned Income. Hence, The Assessee Filed Appeal Against The Above Said Intimation Before Ld Cit(A) & The Same Is Pending Before Him.

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Tapdiya, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

delay of around thirty days in filing the appeal before Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld.AR submitted that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. We heard the Ld.DR on this issue and perused the record. Having regard ... submissions made by the assessee, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning the delay. Accordingly, we condone