← 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

C M Alloys Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 22/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2009-10
Section 144Section 147r

present dispute and payment of appropriate taxes. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations ... appeal in time were wholly attributable to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Thus, we hold that there was a bonafide and reasonable cause for not attending any of the proceedings. Accordingly, delay in filling of the appeals before CIT(A) and 43 days delay in filing

Rakesh Reddy Tanguturu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 229/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rakesh Reddy Tanguturu, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of 8-2-293/82/F/A/65, Income Tax, Plot No.65-A, Circle – 6(1), Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan : Aaupy9817A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2019-20 Arises From The Order Of Addl/Jcit (Appeals), Madurai, Dt.31.02.2024 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee, Who Is An Individual Having Income From Business, Other Sources & Agricultural Income. For The Year Under Appeal, In Addition To The Above Sources Of Income, The Assessee Had Also Reported Income From Capital Gains Being Gain On Redemption Of Mutual Funds. For The Previous Year Ending On 31.03.2019 Relevant To Ay 2019-20, The Original Return Of Income Was Filed Electronically On 27.09.2019 Admitting An Income Of Rs.1,35,05,760/- After Claiming Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A Of The Act. In The Original Return Of Income, The Assessee Had Also Reported Loss From Business Of Rs.40,21,673/-. The Business Loss Of Rs.40,21,673/- Was Not Set Off Against Any Other Source Of Income. Subsequently, The Return Was Revised On 21.08.2020 To Report The Revised Loss From Business To Rs.4,47,991/- From Rs.40,21,673/- . Even This Loss Of Rs.4,47,991/- Was Ignored In The Return, Meaning Thereby The Loss From Business Was Not Set Off Against Any Other Source Of Income Both In Original & Revised Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.A.R
Section 143(1)Section 39Section 90

lower authorities. In the present case, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee holding that assessee filed Form 67 belatedly without any valid reasonable cause. The ld. AR submitted that Rule 128(9) of ITAT Rules does not provide for disallowance of foreign tax credit in case of belated

Lanco Rithwik Joint Venture, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 232/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Lanco Rithwik Joint Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 14(1), Venture, Hyderabad. Plot No.37 & 39, Navodaya Colony, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034. Pan : Aabal3655J (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2024 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.A.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

totally failed to respond to the notice issued u/s 142(1) dt. 22-12-2020, but delayed the submission of information, because of reasonable cause on assessee that the assessee had submitted all the required information before the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessment order has been passed

Shine Star, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4742/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 271(1)(c)

parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The learned AR submitted that

Usha Goyal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-43(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3695/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekusha Goyal, Vs. Dcit, Circle 43 (1), 134/135, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi. Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aecpg5220J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 Date Of Order : 09.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 26.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Penalty Imposed Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Facts That There Was No Non- Compliance Of Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 06.11.2019 On The Scheduled Date 08.11.2019 As The Appellant Duly Filed Adjournment Before The Ld. Assessing Officer & Later On Filed All Requisite Details & Documents.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274

facts that alleged non-compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 06.11.2019 if any was not deliberate and due to reasonable cause, therefore provisions of section 273B of the Act is applicable in the case of the appellant. 3. Without prejudice to the ground of Appeal ... that on 08.11.2019 assessee had requested the Assessing 4 Officer to adjourn the hearing as her Authorised Representative was out of Delhi. When the reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice is crystal clear, assessee need not to be visited with the rigours of penalty

Nitin Kumar, G B Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Noida

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

ITA 2612/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Nitin Kumar, Vs Ito, A-129, Omaxe Nri City, Ward-2(3), Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Noida. Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201307. Pan-Ajcpk5527E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

Section 142(1)

present case, it is stated by the assessee that he did not receive notice of hearing. Non-receipt of notice of hearing would be reasonable cause for non-attending the assessment/appellate proceedings. Therefore, to sub-serve the principle of natural justice, we hereby set aside the impugned order and restore

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act as the assessee has grossly failed to prove that there was any reasonable cause to accept deposits otherwise than through Bank Draft or through cheque exceeding Rs.20,000/-. The Assessing Officer clearly observed that the assessee has chosen

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 192/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act as the assessee has grossly failed to prove that there was any reasonable cause to accept deposits otherwise than through Bank Draft or through cheque exceeding Rs.20,000/-. The Assessing Officer clearly observed that the assessee has chosen

M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara vs. The Jt.CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 109/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act as the assessee has grossly failed to prove that there was any reasonable cause to accept deposits otherwise than through Bank Draft or through cheque exceeding Rs.20,000/-. The Assessing Officer clearly observed that the assessee has chosen

M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara vs. The Jt.CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 108/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act as the assessee has grossly failed to prove that there was any reasonable cause to accept deposits otherwise than through Bank Draft or through cheque exceeding Rs.20,000/-. The Assessing Officer clearly observed that the assessee has chosen

Ketki Mukesh Patel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune

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

ITA 1364/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1364/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

Having regard to the averments made in the condonation petition, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is prevented by a sufficient reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, we condone the appeal in filing the appeal before us and admit

The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co-Operative Credit Society Limited No 1904, Palakoderu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palakol

ITA 86/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.85/Viz/2024 & 86/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21) The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-1, Income Tax Office No.1904, Palakoderu Mandal Aayakar Bhavan West Godavari Dist. Doddipatla Road [Pan : Aacat5595N] Palakol (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(AA)Section 80P(2)(a)

days, citing medical reasons. I have gone through the condonation petition and medical certificate filed by the assessee and find that there is a reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3 I.T.A. No.85/Viz/2024

The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co-Operative Credit Society Limited No 1904, Palakoderu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palkol

ITA 85/VIZ/2024[201819]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 May 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.85/Viz/2024 & 86/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21) The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-1, Income Tax Office No.1904, Palakoderu Mandal Aayakar Bhavan West Godavari Dist. Doddipatla Road [Pan : Aacat5595N] Palakol (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(AA)Section 80P(2)(a)

days, citing medical reasons. I have gone through the condonation petition and medical certificate filed by the assessee and find that there is a reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3 I.T.A. No.85/Viz/2024

Mogulkata Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 201/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)Section 44A

filing the appeals. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the assessee was prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee

Palsons Derma Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 198/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Palsons Derma Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 10/D/1, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani Vs Circle – 11(1), Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp5629D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter The “Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dt. 26/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grievance Raised In Ground No. 1 Is That The Ld. First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 675 Days In Filing Of The Appeal & Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal As Non-Maintainable. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay As Arisen Because After Receiving Intimation U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act, Rectification Filed U/S 154 Of The Act Was Rejected & In The Meantime, Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dealing With The Issues Arising Out Of The Intimation

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

again standing in the name of the assessee. Considering all these aspects, we find that the assessee had a reasonable cause for being unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay of 675 days in filing the appeal before the ld. First Appellate

Shri Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samiti, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 98/JPR/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2024AY 2022-2023
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 144BSection 80G

petition advanced by the assessee for condonation of delay. The Bench feels that the delay of 374 days made by the assessee have reasonable cause in filing the appeals that the subsequent notice was not served on the email id and considering that non disputed facts we considered that ... assessee has reasonable cause in not bringing the appeal in time considering the decision of the apex court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others 167 ITR 471(SC). Thus, the delay is condoned. 4. First, we take up the appeals of the assessee

Daridra Narayan Sewa Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 652/JPR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta CA &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(230)Section 12ASection 80G

provided in the Act. There is no such provision nor there is any power to condone the delay after considering the reasonable reasons. A reasonable cause can be taken into cognizance for condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore

Himalaya Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80G

Appeals) is of the opinion that the burden is entirely on the appellant to demonstrate that the delay was for reasons beyond its control. “Reasonable Cause” should be such that would have prevented a man of ordinary prudence acting under normal circumstances without negligence or inaction or want of bona

Vinay Grover, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

Adopted the sales amounting to Rs

ITA 3206/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 234A

circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal on the ground of belated filing and assuming that there does not exist sufficient and reasonable cause which prevented the appellant in filing of the appeal within due date. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

Sudama Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-67(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2525/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeksudama Sharma, Vs. Ito, Ward 67 (1), Ipso Legal H-35, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Jangpura Extension, Delhi – 110 014. (Pan : Bfops9326F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dishant Sethi, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Order : .05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 27.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.21,000/- Made By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271D R.W.S. 269Ss Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dishant Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

That the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act is bad in law in as much as the appellant had a reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act.” 3. The facts relating to levy of penalty are duly captured from the assessee’s submissions before ... find that the buyer in this case has paid almost entire amount by cheque but only a small amount is paid in cash. The reasonable cause made in this regard is that the amount was already withdrawn from the bank by the buyer and no amount remained in the bank