“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

Vijay Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3033/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer:- 1. Initiating proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 against the Appellant without any reasonable cause; 2. In sustaining and maintaining the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act in the subject year; 3. In completing the assessment on the basis ... Appellant had challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147/148 of the Act and had pleaded and that it was without reasonable cause and which had been erroneously sustained and maintained by the Authorities. It was further stated that qua the additional grounds the relief that was sought was also with

Hariom, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3032/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

Raj Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3031/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

Indiraben V. Patel L/H of Late Vinodbhai Bhikhubhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5) Now Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 552/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 552/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Indiraben V. Patel L/H Of Late Income Tax Officer, Vinodbhai Bhikhubhai Patel, Vs. Ward-1(2)(5), C-19, Jauambe Society, Ahmedabad. Pop Gorwa Workshop, Present Juridiction Subhanpura Road, Income Tax Officer, Baroda-390022. Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad. Pan: Actpp3170H

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R, Sr.DR

meaning thereby during the relevant time the assesee was no more in existence. Considering all these facts, it appears to us that there was reasonable cause for non-appearance of the assessee and thus we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), for fresh adjudication

Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Yusuf Patel, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panvel

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 902/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 08.12.2019. 2 ITA.No.902/PUN./2023 His case is that the assessee had not pleaded and proved any reasonable cause indicating circumstances beyond his control in the corresponding condonation averments placed before the NFAC. He could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the learned NFAC

Logamaheshwara, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 1312/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1312/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Logamaheshwara Income Tax Officer, 5/217, Attavanai V. Ward -1, Erayamangalayam, Tiruchengode. Erayamangalayam, Namakkal – 637 210. [Pan: Ajqpl-7714-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 69A

delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 132Section 271Section 271ASection 274

relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible. The ld. A.R. has taken us to the section 271AAB of the Act and also section 158BFA

Shri Krishan Kanchan Sewa Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemptions Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 763/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Atul Kumar Gokhru, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12A

available on record, the Bench noted the submissions of the assessee and found that this is not an inordinate delay and the assessee has reasonable cause to consider his application for condonation of delay of three days and there is merit in 3 SHRI KRISHAN KANCHAN SEWA TRUST

Pawan International, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 364/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)

NFAC, Delhi went ahead and levied penalty amounting to Rs. 60,000/-. 9. It was submitted that the assessee has failed to establish any reasonable cause for non compliance to the said notices and therefore the NFAC has imposed penalty for each of such defects adding up to penalty

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 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) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

which was required to be handed over to the assessee. On perusal of the affidavit, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented for reasonable cause 2 I.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019; Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata from filing this appeal in prescribed time limit. Accordingly, we condone the delay

Sri. Mohammadali Thayalepurayil, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 13/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 264Section 68

prayer to admit the same for proper adjudication of the issue on merits. We are of the view that there is reasonable cause for non-appearance before the AO. Having found that there is reasonable cause for non-appearance before the AO, the CIT(A) ought to have admitted

Knowledgehut Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1051/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Knowledge Hut Solutions Pvt. Ltd., C/O. P Murali & Co., The Deputy Chartered Commissioner Accountants, Of Income Tax, 6-3-655/2/3, Circle – 4(3)(1), Somajiguda, Bangalore. Vs. Karnataka – 560 102. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Technical 2. condoning that the delay in filing ground the appeal on the reasons beyond the control of the appellant and with a reasonable cause. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have fairly appreciated the fact that the delay in filing of appeal is because the order has been misplaced ... could only be Technical 3. traced on 21.03.2020 and the ground further delay in filing is due to COVID-19 situation which is a reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the appeal on the technical reason of delay in filing

Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Ambala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

COVID-19 Pandemic. 5. After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on the record, we find that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal which is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. In the present appeal

Harish Agarwal., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1214/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

remain vigilant and file necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take any further adjournment, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. In case after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, there is no compliance before the ld. CIT(A), then

Vighnahartha Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT (Exemption) Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 3324/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifiaur Rahmanvighnahartha Trust, Vs. Dcit(Exemp)C-2, 1605/1606, Hurrah Cumballa Hill, Building City Of Joy, Mntl Te Building, Mulund West, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400080. Dr G.D Marg, Mumbai- 400026. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatv8040K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal.Ar Revenue By : Shri Ujjwalkumarchavhan.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) – Delhi / Cit(A) U/S 271B & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri UjjwalkumarChavhan.Sr.DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 263Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

account audited under section 44AB of the Act. Vighnahartha, Mumbai. The appellants further, contend that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act inasmuch as the appellants being a charitable trust, though not a registered charitable trust, were ... facts, information of the scrutiny assessment and in spite of issuing the penalty notices on various dates there was no proper compliances and the reasonable cause was not explained and finally the AO has Vighnahartha, Mumbai. levied a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- and passed the order u/s 271B

Naseem Ahmad, Lucknow vs. ITO Range-3(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 363/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Naseem Ahamad, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No. 57, Bhakhamau, Behta, Office Of The Income Tax Bakshi Ka Talab, Officer, Range-3(2), Lucknow. Lucknow. Pan: Apqpa 4484H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shubham Rastogi, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/02/2024

Section 115BSection 144Section 44ASection 69A

NFAC, erred on facts and in law in passing Ex-partee Order on 21.11.2023 without appreciating I.T.A. No.363/Lkw/2023 3 that there was a reasonable cause being medical reason of Counsel of the Assessee. 2. The Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC while passing the Expartee Order without appreciating that in the adjournment

Ratan Chand Goel, Bahraich vs. ITO-2, Bahraich

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

ITA 331/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Ratan Chand Goel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer-Ii, Mohalla – Indira Nagar, 423-A, Vaishnavpuram, Risia Bazar, Huzoorpur Road, Bahraich- 271875 Bahraich- 271801, U.P. Pan: Ailpg 1104C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shubham Rastogi, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/02/2024

Section 250

Statement of Facts vide receipt no. Book No. 1 Sr. No. 48. I.T.A. No.331/Lkw/2023 3 (2) That there was a reasonable cause being Assessee is not aware of the e assessment procedure and also living in Remote Area, therefore, Assessee was not aware of issuance of notice and passing ... Demand. Assessee came to know of passing of order u/s 250 dated 29.08.2023 and immediately contacted his Local Counsel. Thus there was a reasonable cause for not complying the Notice issued through e-filing portal. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE (4) The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Land

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) the prescribed period, in case the Commissioners were satisfied that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the said forms within the stipulated period. 7.1 By way of further circular No. 30/2019 dated 17.12.2019, similar directions were issued by CBDT

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 343/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 342/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22