← 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

Arjun Ratna Thapaniya, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department

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

ITA 4854/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Vishwasrao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU

Saint Gobain Materiaux De Construction Sas, France vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITANo

ITA 4244/MUM/2023[AY 2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Akram KhanFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar SRDR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 92E

levying a penalty under Section 271BA amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that there was a ‘reasonable cause’ for non-furnishing of Transfer Pricing Report as required under section 92E.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a foreign ... Section 273B of the Act, wherein it has been specifically provided that "…..no penalty 'shall be' imposable …………..if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure". So, the relevant provisions under consideration reveals that though the imposition of penalty is discretionary, however, the word 'shall' used

Chryso, France vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

ITA 2035/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Chryso, Vs Acit, 19, Place De La Resistance 92445, Circle Intl. Taxation 1(2)(1), Cedex, Issy Les Moulineaux, New Delhi. Paris, France. Pan: Aadcc0892N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Shreya Loyalka, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.N. Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi-42 (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10036/2009-10 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Ms Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

assessee has raised a ground that the CIT(A) has rejected the application for condonation of the delay in spite of there being reasonable cause. The ld. AR had submitted that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, was never served upon the assessee and, for that reason, till

Margi Darpan Shah, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 664/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144

death of father-in-law (detailed history is enclosed in Annexure A). 3. I hereby pray your honor to in view of above reasonable causes for non-compliances, appellant hereby pray for set aside order of Assessing Officer. 4. Appellant hereby pray to remand case back

Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri vs. Jagrut Motors, Ratnagiri

Appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

ITA 282/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri . . . . . . . . Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Jagrut Motors, D-25, Midc, Mirjole, Ratnagiri– 415 639 Pan : Aadfj1431D . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/05/2024 Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Anent To Assessment Year 2012-13 [For Short ‘Ay’] Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Cit(A) /Nfac’] Dt. 19/12/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 14/03/2019 Passed U/S 271E By The Jcit Ratnagiri Range, Ratnagiri [For Short ‘Ao’]

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 250Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 273B

r.w.s. 274 of the Act. Upon assessee’s failure to establish exceptional circumstances which triggered such contravention of section 269SS and failure to prove reasonable cause behind such contravention in terms of section 273B of the Act, the Ld. AO culminated the penalty proceedings by imposing a penalty of equivalent

Sree Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Joint Commissioner of Income, Range-2, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.18/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Sree Constructions, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of G-3, Anjali Apartments, Income Tax, Sitarama Nagar, Patamata Lanka, Range-2, Vijayawada-520010. Vijayawada. Pan: Abvfs 5848 N (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

5/1/2022. The Ld. JCIT did not consider the submissions made by the assessee and observed that since the assessee has not made out a reasonable cause for the failure as required U/s. 273B of the Act, the violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act will be attracted. Accordingly

Nymish Kundum, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Rajamahendravaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/VIZ/2022[2016-7]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

271D of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the case of the appellant falls within the scope of reasonable cause as specified in section 273B of the Act. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5 Further ... capital gains to tax. Further, the explanation given by the assessee for receipt of sale consideration of Rs. 15,41,000/- constitutes a “reasonable cause” as contemplated in section 273B of the Act and the assessee has accepted the cash under inevitably unavoidable circumstances as explained

Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Co Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle -2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 233/VIZ/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.233/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Producers Co. Ltd, Income Tax (Osd), Visakhapatnam. Central Circle-2, Pan: Aajcs 7398 P Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) (supra) as well as considering the 6 absence of any cogent reason which constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause that is required to condone the huge inordinate delay of 775 days in the case of the assessee, we are of the considered view that this

Anand Kumar Adari, Visakhapatnam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 232/VIZ/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.232/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Anand Kumar Adari, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax (Osd), Pan: Adlpa 1847 P Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) (supra) as well as considering the 6 absence of any cogent reason which constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause that is required to condone the huge inordinate delay of 775 days in the case of the assessee, we are of the considered view that this

Anil Kumar Mohanka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Asansol

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

ITA 314/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 250

Mohanka. vigilant and file necessary documents, if considered, in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take adjournment, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th

Anukul Commercial Private Limited., Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 1478/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.1478/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

also directed to update the correct e-mail address on the PAN data base and shall not take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 28th

Avijit Mondal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-52(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1345/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 147Section 249Section 250

limitation date is not tenable. Therefore, from the above facts and documents, it is established that appellant has failed to furnish any “sufficient and reasonable cause” along with evidence which may be accepted and considered for attributing delay in preferring the appeal within limitation period.” 5.1. The only question

Gobinda Ghosh, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(2), Kolkata, Government Place

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

ITA 1053/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.1053/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18

Section 144Section 250

appellate authority and also update the correct e-mail address on the PAN data base and should not take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 28th

Vimla, Ramgarh, Alwar vs. ITO, Alwar

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

ITA 300/JPR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

demand raised by the AO. Thus, she first time came to know that her appeal has been rejected. Consequently, she submitted that there exists reasonable cause due to which she was prevented to file the appeal within time and delay was beyond her control and thus her appeal deserves

Mukesh Kumar Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit

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

ITA 290/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Chaudhary Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

delay was shown by the appellant. The behavior of the assessee could be termed as personified inaction and negligence which would not constitute reasonable cause. In view of the above discussion, the request for condonation of delay is rejected. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is not maintainable in view ... consider service of notice have been clearly fulfilled in instant case. Further, during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished reasonable cause for non-compliance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act. During the appellate proceedings, it is observed that the appellant has filed appeal

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3093/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w SamkitFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80Section 80ISection 92Section 92B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM Ι.Τ

Naveen Kumar Bitla, Warangal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 590/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.590/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Naveen Kumar Bitla Vs. Acit Warangal Circle 7(1) Pan:Atfpb0191D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S SandhyaFor Respondent: : Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha, DR
Section 69

fact remains that the delay in filing of the appeal is very huge and reasons given by the assessee does not come under the reasonable cause. Therefore, she submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should not be condoned. 4. After hearing both the parties and considering ... Naveen Kumar Bitla Warangal reasons given by the appellant for not filing of the appeal on or before the due date comes under reasonable cause and thus, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 5. Facts

Sanjay Sharma, Indore vs. ITO-1(1), Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 5/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Sanjay Sharma, National E-Assessment बनाम/ 41, Kelod Kartal, Centre, Assessment Unit, Vs. Khandwa Road, Income Tax Department, Indore. Nfac,Delhi (Pan: Effps8527L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sanjay Sharma, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 41, Kelod Kartal, 1(1), Vs. Khandwa Road, Indore. Indore. (Pan: Effps8527L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 253(5)Section 271FSection 50C

below taxable limit and therefore not required to file return. That apart, the penalty u/s 271F cannot be imposed if there is a reasonable cause for occurrence of default. However, the assessee could not Page 4 of 5 Shri Sanjay Sharma, Indore vs. NFAC, Delhi/ITO(1),Indore. ITA Nos.4 & 5/Ind/2014

Sanjay Sharma, Indore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 4/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Sanjay Sharma, National E-Assessment बनाम/ 41, Kelod Kartal, Centre, Assessment Unit, Vs. Khandwa Road, Income Tax Department, Indore. Nfac,Delhi (Pan: Effps8527L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sanjay Sharma, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 41, Kelod Kartal, 1(1), Vs. Khandwa Road, Indore. Indore. (Pan: Effps8527L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 253(5)Section 271FSection 50C

below taxable limit and therefore not required to file return. That apart, the penalty u/s 271F cannot be imposed if there is a reasonable cause for occurrence of default. However, the assessee could not Page 4 of 5 Shri Sanjay Sharma, Indore vs. NFAC, Delhi/ITO(1),Indore. ITA Nos.4 & 5/Ind/2014

Ajay Jaiswal, Betul vs. Income Tax Officer, Betul

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

ITA 508/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniajay Jaiswal Ito Kothi Bazar, Betul Betul Vs. Betul (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaypj4599H Assessee By Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.05.2024

keeping well and died on 21.08.2023. Considering all these reasons explained by the assessee we are satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for delay of 199 days in filing the present appeal. 5. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest