← 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

Kavita Milind Rananaware, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1117/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 68Section 69

caused denial of justice to the appellant as the Id.CIT(A) has erred and failed to condone^ the delay caused, on account of reasonable cause and also failed to pass the order on the merit of the grounds of appeal on the basis of written submission and supporting documents filed ... caused denial of justice to the appellant as the Id.CIT(A) has erred and failed to condone the delay caused on account of reasonable cause and also failed to pass the order on the merit of the grounds of appeal on the basis of written submission and supporting documents filed

Kavita Milind Rananaware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1116/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 68Section 69

caused denial of justice to the appellant as the Id.CIT(A) has erred and failed to condone^ the delay caused, on account of reasonable cause and also failed to pass the order on the merit of the grounds of appeal on the basis of written submission and supporting documents filed ... caused denial of justice to the appellant as the Id.CIT(A) has erred and failed to condone the delay caused on account of reasonable cause and also failed to pass the order on the merit of the grounds of appeal on the basis of written submission and supporting documents filed

Chovis Gam Sachidanand Medical and Research Centre Borsad, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 520/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 250

appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it”. It means, if the appellant is not pursuing the appeal without any reasonable cause, it may be presumed that he may not be interest in taking the issue seriously before the appellate authority or he may not be able

Bcda Members Benevolent Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 787/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.787/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bcda Members Benevolent Trust ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabtb0860C) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 24.07.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2020-21 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 07.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By Ao, Cpc Dated 26.04.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234FSection 250

Board may take and decision accordingly. We, however, considering the fact that the assessee has filed an application and the assessee had a reasonable cause of delay in filing the return on account of technical difficulty and also on account of Covid restriction, therefore, the concerned authority having power

Durgamondap Samabay Krishi Unnayn Samati Ltd., ITO, Ward No-49(1), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward No- 49(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1153/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

Durgamondap Samabay Krishi Unnayn Samiti Ltd. 7. That in view of the factors mentioned above, your petitioner most humbly submits that there is a reasonable cause for 185 days’ delay in filing the appeal which may please be condoned and the case of your petitioner be heard on merit

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Jaipur vs. Birma Devi, Jaipur

14. As a result, this appeal filed by the department-Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 849/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Bhardwaj (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 250Section 253Section 260Section 261Section 263Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

having arrived at the conclusion that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without any reasonable cause. 5. As is available from the order of penalty, the assessee had challenged the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, by filing the appeal before Learned CIT(A)-2, Jaipur. That

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemption, Ward-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn as pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2024

ITA 109/JPR/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 109/Jpr/2024 Rajendra & Ursula Joshi Charitable Cuke The Ito Exemption, Trust Vs. Ward-1, Anchor Mall, 3Rd Floor Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;Hys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aactr8067J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@Assesseeby : Shri Rajat Choudhary, Adv. ( V.C.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By : Shri Ajay Malik (Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2024 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudhary, Adv. ( V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 80G

time taken in process of legal advise taken for re-apply & technical glitches on the Income Tax Portal and the same is considered as reasonable cause for delay in appeal filing before Hon’ble ITAT, jaipur bench.” 2.2 The Bench noted that the submission as raised by the assessee

Sri Anjaneya Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Harihara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 1197/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ramanagowdar S Gowda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 5

reason that the appellant was not aware of the notices, mails, income tax portal. 11. It is therefore submitted that there is a reasonable cause in the case, which led to the aforesaid delay in filing of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and accordingly, the Appellant prays that

Dawalsaheb Babusaheb Sultanbhai, Dharwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1181/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Dawalsaheb Babusaheb Sultanbhai, Vs. Ito, 1A, Mehaboobnagar, Ward – 1(1), Dharwad – 580 008. Hubli. Pan : Aqzps 4249 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

ignorance of law is not an excuse in this country. In the light of the foregoing Para, the default of the assessee is without reasonable cause. I am thus satisfied that the case of the assessee is a fit case and warrants a penalty, Accordingly, the penalty is calculated ... nothing on record from the side of the appellant. There is nothing on record to even suggest that he was prevented by any reasonable cause to claim immunity u/s 273B of the Act. I have gone through 13 grounds taken in this appeal. The appellant has made averments without corresponding

M/S. Byrambada Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mysuru

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

ITA 1145/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 51

this Tribunal belatedly as the assessee was not aware about the appellate order being passed. In our view, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. It is also noted that there is no malafide intention

Ummeed Foundation, Al Shakreen Apt vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, Pmt Building Commercial Complex

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1876/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Ummeed Foundation, Cit(E), Pune, Room No. 204, A1 Shakreen Apt, 322, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Vs. Waf Acomplex Chs, H-104, Office, Pmt Building Sharifa Road, Amrut Nagar, City Commercial Complex, Shankar Convent High School, Thane, Sheth Road, Swargate, Kausa B.O., Maharashtra-400612. Pune-411037. Pan No. Aaatu 4914 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rohan Dedhia
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

bonafide reason for non there is bonafide reason for non-compliance. In our opinion, there compliance. In our opinion, there is a sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for is a sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for is a sufficient ... reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for non-compliance. 3.1 As far as finding of the Ld. CIT(E) that the application filed by As far as finding of the Ld. CIT(E) that the application filed by As far as finding of the Ld. CIT(E) that

Anjuman E Tanzimul Muslimeen, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1126/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Anjuman E Tanzimul Vs. Cit (Exemption) Muslimeen, Jama Masjid Room No. 601, 6 Th Floor, Compound, Mapkhan Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Nagar, Marol, Andheri (E) Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400 059 Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacta9800E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra
Section 12A

also provided new email ID for receiving communication from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). We consider that there appear to be a reasonable cause for not making compliance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for the reason as discussed supra, therefore, we restore this case to the file

Samarpan, Rohtak vs. ITO Exemptions, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1152/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

take shelter of the death of the erstwhile President of the Trust on 22.2.2021. Even if this has to be construed as a reasonable cause, the delay from 26.4.2017 to 22.2.2021 for Asst Year 2015-16 and delay from 26.4.2019 to 22.2.2021 for Asst Year 2017-18 does not stand

Samarpan, Rohtak vs. ITO Exemptions, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1151/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

take shelter of the death of the erstwhile President of the Trust on 22.2.2021. Even if this has to be construed as a reasonable cause, the delay from 26.4.2017 to 22.2.2021 for Asst Year 2015-16 and delay from 26.4.2019 to 22.2.2021 for Asst Year 2017-18 does not stand

Chowdry Associates, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7718/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 28

days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. A perusal of the same shows that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing the appeal on time. Considering the same, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 taken together

Ms Diamond Enterprises, Parbhani vs. ITO Hingoli, Parbhani

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

ITA 690/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

ground that there was a delay of 171 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee and the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. We find the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in quantum proceedings has condoned the delay

Ms Diamond Enterprises, Parbhani vs. ITO Hingoli, Parbhani

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

ITA 689/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

ground that there was a delay of 171 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee and the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. We find the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in quantum proceedings has condoned the delay

Trade City Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 678/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)

after a delay of 1313 days. 8. That in view of the factors mentioned above, your petitioner most humbly submits that there is a reasonable cause for 1313 days’ delay in filing the appeal which may please be condoned and the case of your petitioner be heard on merit

Rajendra Singa Dushyanth Singh, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 990/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 17

need to consider the cause of the delay and not the length of the delay. Accordingly, in our considered view when there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai ... that the Hon’ble Madras High Court was pleased to condone the delay for 20 years approximately by holding that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee . ITA No.989-990/Bang/2004 Page 4 of 9 for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Thus

Rajendra Singa Dushyanth Singh, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 989/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 17

need to consider the cause of the delay and not the length of the delay. Accordingly, in our considered view when there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai ... that the Hon’ble Madras High Court was pleased to condone the delay for 20 years approximately by holding that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee . ITA No.989-990/Bang/2004 Page 4 of 9 for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Thus