“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

Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

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

ITA 3446/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 272(2)(g)Section 272A(2)(g)Section 275(1)

Certificate in Form 16A and that the same could be reflected only after the remittance of TDS amounts, the assessee was prevented from reasonable cause in not issuing the Form 16A to the deductees in time. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income made a reference to the ld. Joint Commissioner ... that the same could be reflected only after the remittance of TDS amounts, the assessee was Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd prevented from reasonable cause in not issuing the Form 16A to the deductees in time. 6. Apart from this, the most crucial aspect that arises for consideration

Tejinder Singh Walia, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata.

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

ITA 1337/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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 3 AY: 2014-15 Tejinder Singh Walia the assessee, there is no compliance before

Ajmer Industries LLP, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 760/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 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

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Sea Trade Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central -2 (3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3094/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

heard learned DR on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the submissions made in the affidavit, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal, since the delay has happened on account of employee’s delinquency. Accordingly, we condone the delay

Ravi Kumar Verma, Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Meerut Cantt

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 2616/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Representative is also filed. 2.1 Learned DR opposed the submissions. 2.2 For the reasons stated in the application, I am satisfied that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. Apropos to the grounds

Batra Exports, Fazilka vs. DCIT, |TDS, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 38/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

there is delay in filing both the appeals by a day. After considering the affidavit submitted by the assessee, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay, the same is hereby condoned and both the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. In ITA No. 35/Chd/2022

Batra Exports, Fazilka vs. DCIT, |TDS, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 35/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

Turner Morrison Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 530/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)

liable for punishment with rigorous imprisonment under Section 276B. 8.9 That said, both impositions of penalty and prosecution are subject to the defence of 'reasonable cause' as provided in Sections 273B and 278AA of the Act respectively. 9. Importantly, Section 201(2), provides that where a person who, although required

Radhe Mohan Harsh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 & AY

ITA 710/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80C

find that the delay was on account of medical exigency faced by the Authorised Representative of the assessee. The same is a reasonable cause in our opinion and hence the delay is condoned and we admit both these details for hearing. I.T.A. No. 709 & 710 /Kol/2022 Assessment Year

Radhe Mohan Harsh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 & AY

ITA 709/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80C

Mani Sundaram, Devakottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 899/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.899/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mani Sundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 52, Thiyagigal Road, Ward-1, Karaikudi. Devakottai, Tamil Nadu 630 302. [Pan:Cwops9124D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 21.06.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S. Surabi Pvc Pipes & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 20.01.2018 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹.3,03,720/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

that the loan amount shall be treated as gift. The assessee’s mother passed away and produced death certificate. Moreover, the assessee has shown reasonable cause for receiving money towards purchase of machineries. Thus, we are of the opinion that the explanation offered against show cause notice before the authorities ... observed and held as under: 9. In our considered view, the crucial aspect to be considered is as to whether the assessee had shown reasonable cause for having received money in cash in contravention of the provisions of Section 271D of the Act. The Assessing Officer had no material

S.K. V Eductional Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 1375/CHNY/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1375/Chny/2023 S.K.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21A, Nambikkai Arudhra Street, Exemptions Ward-3, T S Krishna Nagar, Mogappair, Chennai. Chennai 600 037. [Pan:Aazts7120G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai, Dated 24.11.2022. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 309 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Detailed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

form of an affidavit. By referring to the above affidavit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there 2 I.T.A. No.1375/Chny/23 is reasonable cause for the delay and the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of delay and to admit

Nammalvar Lingusamy, Valsaravakkam vs. CIT [Appeals]-14, Chennai

ITA 532/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.532/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nammalvar Lingusamy, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of 9, Janaki Nagar, Solai Krishnan Street, Income Tax, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. Non Corporate Range 20, Chennai. [Pan:Acbpn0214G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J.K. Reddy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 31.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause, The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

dated 09.09.2019 and served on the assessee on 12.09.2019. Though the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer, but, could not offer any reasonable cause for accepting the sale consideration of the immovable property by cash. Therefore, by following various decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Assessing Officer ... dated 30.09.2019 for accepting the sale consideration of immovable property otherwise by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft without reasonable cause and violating the provisions of section 269SS of the 3 I.T.A. No.532/Chny/22 Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under

Manphool Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 271B

return of income—Requirement of getting the books of account audited could arise only where the books of account are maintained—There was a reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited as no accounts were maintained, and thus the assessee could not be penalised both under ss. 271A ... that head though the income / receipt 1 cr there is no requirement to get the books of accounts audited and therefore, this being the reasonable cause for the assessee. The provision of section 273B gives power to the taxing authority not to impose the penalty if the assessee proves that

Goregaon Swetamber Murtipujak Jain Sangh, Mumbai vs. CIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 3368/MUM/2023[23-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

Section 12A

advised bed rest. Hence he could not comply with the notice issued by learned CIT(Exemption). Accordingly, learned AR submitted that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in not responding to the notice issued by 2 Goregaon Swetamber Murtipujak Jain Sangh learned CIT(Exemption). He submitted that

R.K. Sansthan, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 777/JPR/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2024AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Lalwani, ProxyFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)

assessee appeared and application for seeking adjournment was filed without mentioning appropriate reasons. The Bench found that the adjournment application does not show any reasonable cause and thus the same was dismissed. 2.2 Brief facts in this case are that assessment u/s 147/143

S N Sales LLP, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 828/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

appeal, but the assessee has not responded to these notices during the appellate proceedings. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee has neither furnished any reasonable cause with evidences for not replying to the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act dated ... penalty of Rs. 30000 imposed vide order dated 29.06.2021. As per the provisions of u/s. 273B it can be considered as a reasonable cause. Hence, penalty is hereby obliterated. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 06/02/2024. /- (C.N Prasad

Vikas Dattu Deokar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1438/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, JCIT

Section 147

nowhere dealt with merits involved therein in otherwords. Learned DR vehemently argued that assessee has to offer sufficient explanation by way of reasonable cause in light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in University of Delhi vs. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 9488 & 9489 of 2019, dated