“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

Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 862/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usita Nos. 860/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vs. Ito M/S. Nagar Palika Parishad, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ward – 2(2)(3) Hapur, Up-245 101 Ghaziabad Pan No. Aaaln 1136 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 154Section 271C

default per se in the ITA No.860, 861 & 862/Del/2023 Nagar Palika Parishad vs. ITO A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 present circumstances and there exists reasonable cause giving rise to such technical default. 8. In this view of the matter, the penalty imposed under section 271CA/271C in all the three captioned

Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 861/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Section 133ASection 154Section 271C

Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 860/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Section 133ASection 154Section 271C

Bagwant Kishore Memorial Educational Society, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption 1(3), Delhi

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3657/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 119Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

while entertaining such applications for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B, shall satisfy themselves that the applicant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such Form within the stipulated time. 4. Further, the Pr. Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, as the case may be, shall preferably dispose

Naresh Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO Charkhi Dadri, Haryana

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

ITA 122/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him. After considering the details submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty levied by Assessing Officer.

Section 271BSection 271DSection 44A

having knowledge as to the relevant laws applicable to a Business. It was a bonafide belief on his part of the appellant constituted a reasonable cause under the Section 2736. 5. The AO passed the assessment order by accepting the appellant income Rs.81582 (Appellant version). (Assessment Order: Page

Satya Rani Rampal Trust, Chandigarh vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

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

ITA 683/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.”

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 282(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on the record, we find that there exist reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal due to non-service of the impugned order and as soon as the assessee became aware of the passing of the impugned

Anudita Jawahar Datta, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1137/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Naimish DixitFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 143(2)Section 144

last week of April, 2024 that the appellant came to know 2 about passing of the order by NFAC on 10.05.2023. There was reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the time prescribed under the Act. The delay of 316 days occurred in filing the appeal ... days. 3. I have gone through the averments made in the condonation petition and find that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in presenting the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay

Kolloorvila Service Cooperative Society Limited Q214, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

ITA 879/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273Section 44Section 44ASection 80P

days delay in furnishing the tax audit report under section 44 AB of the Income Tax Act comes under the purview of reasonable cause and enunciated under Section 273(B) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Without considering the replay furnished by the assessee society the assessing authority passed order ... assessee society have no control over the same. 9. The delay in completing the final audit report of the Co- Operative Department is a reasonable cause for delay in furnishing the Tax Audit report U/S 44AB of the Income Tax Act 1961. Since the tax auditor could not start

Kolloorvila Service Cooperative Society Limited Q214, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officeer, Kollam

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

ITA 667/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273Section 44Section 44ASection 80P

M/S. Arjuna Souhardha Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1221/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Which Was Not Condoned. The Reason That Caused The Delay Is Reproduced In The Impugned Order At Page 3. It Is Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Was Advised By The Erstwhile Authorised Representative To Pay The Demand & That There Was No Redressal Mechanism Available Against Such Assessment Order. It Is Stated Therein That The Assessee Thereafter Approached Another Tax Consultant Who Advised The Assessee To File Appeal, That Causing The Delay. The Ld.Ar Submitted That, The Assessee Diligently Filed The Appeal Immediately Upon Receipt Of The Advise From Another Consultant & There Is No Malafide Intention On Behalf Of The Assessee, Though Belatedly. He Thus Prayed For The Remission Of The Issues To Be Considered On Merits. 2.1. The Ld.Dr Though Objected Could Not Controvert That The Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld.Cit(A) Could Not Be Attributable To The Assessee. We Have Perused The Submissions Advanced By Both Sides In The Light Of Records Placed Before Us. 3. From The Submissions Of Assessee Reproduced In The Impugned Order, There Does Not Arise Any Malafide Intention On Behalf Of Assessee For Not Filing The Present Appeals Before The Ld.Cit(A) In The Period Of Limitation. Page 3 Of 6

Section 51

Ld.CIT(A) in the period of limitation. Page 3 of 6 ITA Nos. 1220 & 1221/Bang/2024 3.1. In our view, the assessee has made out reasonable cause for the delay caused in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). Nothing to establish any contrary intention was brought on record ... revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there is sufficient cause and reasonable cause to condone the delay of 112 days as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions

M/S. Arjuna Souhardha Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1220/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi .S, Advocate

Section 51

Ld.CIT(A) in the period of limitation. Page 3 of 6 ITA Nos. 1220 & 1221/Bang/2024 3.1. In our view, the assessee has made out reasonable cause for the delay caused in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). Nothing to establish any contrary intention was brought on record ... revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there is sufficient cause and reasonable cause to condone the delay of 112 days as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions

Ramesh Kumar Kothari, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hassan

ITA 1193/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) & That The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Is An Ex-Parte Order. 2.1. It Is Also Submitted By The Ld.Ar That, The Present Appeal Filed Before This Tribunal Is With A Delay Of 54 Days & That The Assessee Has Furnished The Application For Condonation Of Delay Vide Its Affidavit Dated 17/06/2024. It Is Submitted In The Affidavit That Though The Assessee Received The Impugned Order By The Nfac On 26.02.2024 Through Online Portal, As The Assessee Was Otherwise Also In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) For Other

Section 51

filing the present appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) in the period of limitation. 3.1. In our view, the assessee has made out reasonable cause for the delay caused in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). Nothing to establish any contrary intention was brought on record by the revenue before ... this Tribunal. In our opinion there is sufficient cause and reasonable cause to condone the delay of 112 days as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 3.2. We place

Inder Pal Singh Legal Heir of Deceased Satnam Singh 171789, Street No.8, Guru Teg Bahadur Jagraon, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jagraon, Punjab

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

ITA 43/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 250Section 253Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

contentions of the Ld. AR. Findings and Conclusions 10. Delay of 38 days is condoned on basis of affidavit filed and for delay reasonable cause is shown. Delay condoned. After carefully perusing the impugned order we notice that “notice of hearing” was issued on 12/12/2022, 05/09/2023, 15/09/2023 and 21/09/2023

Daroga Family Foundation, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 719/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 154

rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in filing Form-10B stating the ground that there was no reasonable cause has been shown in the application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ... passed by the ld. CIT (Exemption) u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act and find that— it is observed that the applicant has no reasonable cause regarding the delay in filing Form-10B, assessee applicant has failed to explain the reasonable cause which prevented him from filing Form-10B within

The Tungabhadra Credit Cooperative Society, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Davangere

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

ITA 1201/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Kotresh K, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 51

1201/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 10 ITA Nos. 1199 to 1201/Bang/2024 2.1. It is submitted by the assessee that the reason causing delay in filing appeals before this Tribunal was because the authorized representative was not following up with the proceedings in respect of all the notices and the impugned order ... intention on behalf of assessee for not filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3.1. In our view, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that is caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish any contrary intention has been filed

The Tungabhadra Credit Cooperative Society, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Davangere

ITA 1200/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 250

No.292... DATE. 2016.12. NO. OF CORRECTIONS Page 5 of 10 ITA Nos. 1199 to 1201/Bang/2024 2.1. It is submitted by the assessee that the reason causing delay in filing appeals before this Tribunal was because the authorized representative was not following up with the proceedings in respect ... intention on behalf of assessee for not filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3.1. In our view, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that is caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish any contrary intention has been filed

The Tungabhadra Credit Cooperative Society, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 1199/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Kotresh K, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 51

Priority Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Appeals

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3196/Mum/2024 is

ITA 3196/MUM/2024[AY 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 246ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Whereasin the Course of proceeding before me for the assessment year 2012-13 is appears to me thatyou: - *have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under section 22(1)/22(2) 34 of the Indian Income ... given under section 139(2)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 10 ITA No.3196 /Mum/2024 Priority Jewels Private Limited NOyy.00s000000---Dated..... ..or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish itwithin the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. *have without reasonable

Power Cube Electro Contorls Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward, 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No 3085/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3085/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Yogendra T Wakare(Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 250

thereby erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,99,41,825/- made by the learned A.O. 2] The assessee submits that there was a reasonable cause on its part for the non compliance to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and accordingly, requests for one more opportunity ... erred in holding that the learned A.O. was justified in passing the asst. order u/s 144 without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not attending before the learned A.O. and accordingly, the addition made of Rs.2,99,41,825/- may kindly

Manav Seva Trust, Kolkata vs. A.O. Ward 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 940/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

filed Form 10B. The Court held that the error on the part of auditor cannot be rejected but should be accepted as a reasonable cause shown by the trust management. In that case also, Petitioner did not suo moto realize its mistake and filed a condonation request only after Centralised