← 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

Govindaraj Saravanan Manikandan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2020/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 2020/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Govindaraj Saravanan Manikandan, Income Tax Officer, Kasi Flats 5Th C Block, 8Th Street, V. Non Corporate Ward -8(1), Annai Sathya Nagar, Ramapuram, Chennai. Chennai -600 089. [Pan: Dacpm-7270-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.07.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Main Ground Involved In This Appeal Is As Regards To The Nfac Dismissing The Appeal Solely On The Grounds Of A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before Nfac.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

appeal with a delay 55 days. The ld.CIT(A), after perusing the reasons for delay in filing of appeal held that there is no reasonable cause for filing appeal with 55 days delay and hence, declined the condonation of delay in filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal ... assessee, the appeal was filed accordingly with a delay of 55 days. In term of the above, the ld.AR stated that this is a reasonable cause and delay is also for 55 days. In reply, the ld.CIT-DR stated that the cause deliberated by the ld.AR does not seem

Late Sh. Rajesh Chabra Legal Heir Ankur Chhabra, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3) Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 22/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 22/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Late Shri Rajesh Chabra, Vs. Ito 1(3), Legal Heir Ankur Chhabra, बनाम Ludhiana Prop. M/S Roshan Lal & Sons, Moti Nagar, Ludhiana 141009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaupc1499D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Sराज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit , Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT , Sr.DR
Section 148

erred in passing the order Ex-parte without giving proper/reasonable opportunity of being heard and has failed to appreciate That there was a reasonable cause in not submitting the reply on the merits of the case. 22-Chd-2024 – Late Shri Rajesh Chabra L/h Ankur Chhabra, Ludhiana 2 2. That