← 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

Ar Associates, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 819/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No 817 To 819/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Ar Associates Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Circle 6 (1) Pan:Aavfa2434K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 44B

facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee be given one more opportunity to explain the reasonable cause for non-compliance of the provisions of section 44AB of the Act leading to levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act, before the Assessing ... remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act, if any, for failure to comply with the provisions of section 44AB

Ar Associates, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 818/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No 817 To 819/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Ar Associates Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Circle 6 (1) Pan:Aavfa2434K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 44B

facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee be given one more opportunity to explain the reasonable cause for non-compliance of the provisions of section 44AB of the Act leading to levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act, before the Assessing ... remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act, if any, for failure to comply with the provisions of section 44AB

Ar Associates, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 817/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No 817 To 819/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Ar Associates Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Circle 6 (1) Pan:Aavfa2434K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 44B

facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee be given one more opportunity to explain the reasonable cause for non-compliance of the provisions of section 44AB of the Act leading to levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act, before the Assessing ... remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act, if any, for failure to comply with the provisions of section 44AB

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Chemicon Engineering Consultants Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1397/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.1396&1397/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dcit, C.C-4(2), Kolkata …………………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Chemicon Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 21&22, 2Nd Floor, 230 Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. [Pan: Aaacc2686H] C.O. Nos.36&37/Kol/2024 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. Nos.1396&1397/Kol/2024) Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chemicon Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd ………………………….…..Cross-Objector Vs. Dcit, C.C-4(2), Kolkata................................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 21&22, 2Nd Floor, 230 Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. [Pan: Aaacc2686H] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed Appeals Under Ita No.1396/Kol/2024 & Ita No.1397/Kol/2024 Against The Two Separate Orders Both Dated 03.02.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. Additionally, The Assessee Has Filed Corresponding Cross- Objections In C.O No.36/Kol/2024 & C.O No.37/Kol/2024 For The Respective Assessment Years.

duly mentioned in the condonation petition submitted by the revenue. After perusing the condonation petition, we find that the revenue has demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. At the outset

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Chemicon Engineering Consultants Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1396/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.1396&1397/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dcit, C.C-4(2), Kolkata …………………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Chemicon Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 21&22, 2Nd Floor, 230 Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. [Pan: Aaacc2686H] C.O. Nos.36&37/Kol/2024 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. Nos.1396&1397/Kol/2024) Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chemicon Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd ………………………….…..Cross-Objector Vs. Dcit, C.C-4(2), Kolkata................................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 21&22, 2Nd Floor, 230 Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. [Pan: Aaacc2686H] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed Appeals Under Ita No.1396/Kol/2024 & Ita No.1397/Kol/2024 Against The Two Separate Orders Both Dated 03.02.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. Additionally, The Assessee Has Filed Corresponding Cross- Objections In C.O No.36/Kol/2024 & C.O No.37/Kol/2024 For The Respective Assessment Years.

duly mentioned in the condonation petition submitted by the revenue. After perusing the condonation petition, we find that the revenue has demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. At the outset

Mr. Nandagopal, Pondicherry vs. JCIT, Puducherry

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

ITA 1789/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1789/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Nandagopal, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Door No. 17, 3Rd Cross Street, Income Tax, Gnanaprakasam Nagar, Saram, Puducherry. Pondicherry 605 008. [Pan:Auypn5080H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri N. Viswanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 269SSection 271D

after completing medical related works and execution of sale deed to his work place in Dubai. The ld. AR argued that there is reasonable cause for accepting a small part of sale consideration in cash as there was no sufficient time for 3 I.T.A. No.1789/Chny/24 the assessee ... supports the arguments of the ld. AR that the assessee and his wife are in constant IVF treatment on different occasions. Therefore, we find reasonable cause made out by the assessee in accepting the receipt of small part of sale consideration as advance of ₹.8,85,000/- in cash

Akshay Merchantile P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/CHNY/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.666/Chny/2020 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. Stay Application No.36/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.666/Chny/2020) (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S. Akshay Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम E-5, Moogambika Complex, Central Circle-Ii(1), 4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-6248-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K. Ravi, (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

Rs.5,35,628/- against the cash deposit of Rs.3,43,750/- in their bank account. 3. He further ought to have appreciated the reasonable cause for non filing of return, however he has failed to note that return was filed before making the assessments and therefore data furnished therein ought