← 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

Shri Nitin Nandlal Shrishrimal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhule, Circle

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

ITA 1366/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Nandlal Vs. Acit, Dhule Circle, Shrishrimal, Dhule. 1269, Agra Road, Near Gandhi Statute, Dhule- 424001. Pan : Azvps8225M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Dixit Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)Pune - 11, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 15 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Sr. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons

For Appellant: Shri Naimish DixitFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 44A

controvert the averments made in the above affidavit. We are of the considered opinion that the reasons 2 mentioned by the assessee constitute reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed time. In the circumstances, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication

Mr Ramanath Bajpai, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Pune

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

ITA 218/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.218/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. Ramanath Bajpai, Vs. Ito, Ward-4(4), Pune. B.No.5, S.No.245, Anant Co-Op Housing Society, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Ailpb5763E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Gopal Aswani Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 44 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. The Relevant Portion Of The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Is Reproduced Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri Gopal AswaniFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

controverted the averments made in the above affidavit. We are of the considered opinion that the illness of assessee constitutes reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed time. In the circumstances, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The appellant raised

DCIT, Central Circle, Kolkata vs. Merlins, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 907/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Merlins Merlin House Tax, Central Circle -2(3), Kolkata Vs Samghu Nath Pandit Street Bhowanipore Kolkata - 700020 [Pan : Aatfm9627P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 02/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 28 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

condonation of delay stating therein, the reasons for the delay. On perusal of the petition, we are convinced that the revenue was prevented for reasonable cause from filing this appeal in prescribed time limit. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 2 I.T.A