← 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

Foundation for Guindy Indl Estate Maintanance & Infrastructure Upgradation, Chennai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 1456/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1456/Chny/2024 Foundation For Guindy Indl Estate Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Maintenance & Infrastructure (Exemption), Upgradation, R.V. Tower, No. 10, Chennai 600 034. G.S.T. Road, Thiru-Vika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aafcf0213Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] In Rejecting The Application Filed In Form No. 10Ab & Cancelling The Provisional Approval Granted Vide Order Dated 12.08.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 12A(1)(ac)

Ramesh Kumar, CIT relied on the order of the ld. CIT(E). 5. As discussed above, we note that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause as explained in the duly notarized affidavit for not complying with the notice issued by the ld. CIT(E) dated 23.03.2024 in filing relevant

Shri Babu Munirathinam, Chennai vs. The JCIT, Ncr-17, Chennai

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 1061/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1061/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Babu Munirathinam, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No. 45/13, Sriuvallur Road, Perambur, Income Tax, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Range 17, Chennai. [Pan:Anypm7361H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground Nos. 1 To 4 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

that the loan amount shall be treated as gift. The assessee’s mother passed away and produced death certificate. Moreover, the assessee has shown reasonable cause for receiving money towards purchase of machineries. Thus, we are of the opinion that the explanation offered against show cause notice before the authorities ... observed and held as under: 9. In our considered view, the crucial aspect to be considered is as to whether the assessee had shown reasonable cause for having received money in cash in contravention of the provisions of Section 271D of the Act. The Assessing Officer had no material

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Projects Pvt Ltd, Kurnool

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1763/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Flat No.40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Income Tax, Circle – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. 40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Cross Applicant) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.AR
Section 10BSection 154Section 250

assessee for condonation of delay of 1159 days without assigning any reason as to how the reasons given by the assessee itself comes under reasonable cause for condonation of the delay. The ld.DR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in admitting the appeal after condoning the delay, even though ... reasons given by the appellant does not fall under reasonable cause. Referring to the additions made by the AO towards disallowance of trade discount, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that generally, trade discounts are granted by deduction in invoice only

Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Projects Pvt Ltd., Kurnool vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kurnool

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 615/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Flat No.40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Income Tax, Circle – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. 40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Cross Applicant) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.AR
Section 10BSection 154Section 250

assessee for condonation of delay of 1159 days without assigning any reason as to how the reasons given by the assessee itself comes under reasonable cause for condonation of the delay. The ld.DR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in admitting the appeal after condoning the delay, even though ... reasons given by the appellant does not fall under reasonable cause. Referring to the additions made by the AO towards disallowance of trade discount, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that generally, trade discounts are granted by deduction in invoice only