← 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

Sunny Walia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed ex parte

ITA 1864/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasunny Walia Vs. Ito Plot No.141, Pratap Nagar, Ward – 49(4) New Delhi – 110 064 New Delhi Pan No. Aavpw 2884 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

ICAI, the turnover of the assessee for the purposes of section 44AB stands lower than the threshold limit prescribed for audit purposes. Consequently, the reasonable cause exists for non-compliance of 3 provision of section 44AB of the Act. The penalty imposed under section 271B is consequently reversed and cancelled

Shankar Prasad, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 948/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Shankar Prasad, Vs Dcit, Flat No.15, Anupam Apartment, Circle 1(1)(1), Mb Road, Near Traffic Court, Opp. Vadodara Saket, Delhi-110068 Pan : Aadpp 4358 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinay Jalan, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271F

case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty so imposed without appreciating the facts of the case and without understanding the reasonable cause for not filing the original return.” 3. The assessee had not filed his return of income for the Assessment Year

Shri Sandeeep Raghuvanshi, Harda vs. The PCIT.Bhopal, Bhopal

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

ITA 142/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisandeep Raghuvanshi Pr. Cit 25D Jambheshwar Bhawan Bhopal Vs. Nehru Colony Harda (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aicpr 3080 M Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11 .01.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Considering the reasons and cause of delay explained by the assessee in the affidavit we are satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly the delay of 320 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee

Akik Marketing India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), New Delhi

ITA 4559/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2010-11 Akik Marketing India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, N-39, Ground Floor, Ward 2(1), Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 Pan : Aaaca6579K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca & Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

mind much less independent application of mind and merely relying upon investigation report by AO, further reasons recorded are vague, lacking tangible material/ reasonable cause and justification. 4. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition u/s 68 amounting

Murali Krishna Kommineni, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srikakulam

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

ITA 299/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

condonation petition, citing medical reasons. I have gone through the condonation petition, 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. 3 I.T.A. No.299/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Murali Krishna Kommineni, Srikakulam

Gollamudi Venkateswara Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 290/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.290/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Gollamudi Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.6-169 Ward-1(1) Deepaladinne Village Guntur Panidem Post, Sattenapalli Mandal Guntur [Pan : Aippg8383D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

condonation petition, citing medical reasons. I have gone through the condonation petition, 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. 3 I.T.A. No.290/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Gollamudi Venkateswara Rao, Guntur

Manne Krishna Kishore, Rajahmundry vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

ITA 312/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri Md. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

reasons advanced by the assessee while seeking condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that the reason does not constitute a ‘sufficient / reasonable cause’ for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit and with a delay of 455 days, we hereby reject the condonation

Sri. Hanumantappa Giriyapur Manjunatha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 967/BANG/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Hanumantappa Giriyapur Manjunatha, The Income Tax 415, Brocade Vista Apartment, Officer, Bangalore South, Ward – 5(3)(3), Karnataka – 560 098. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aulpm4215E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vignesh, CA
Section 143(1)Section 90

that would amount to violation of statutory principle and showing utter disregard to logistics. In the present case, the appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing the appeal for 335 days. Unless and until it demonstrated that there was sufficient cause that prevented the appellant

M/S. Child Development Project Officer, Shivamogga vs. Income-Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Davangere

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA 882/BANG/2023[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 250

excessive or inordinate. In our opinion, there is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay ... reported in ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 9 of 17 153 ITR 596 considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court condoned nearly

Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vijayapura

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 873/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

dated 19.6.2019 observed in para 9 & 10 as follows: “9. The assessee has not furnished any specific explanation but has made general submission. No reasonable cause has been furnished for concealing the particulars of income. In view of the facts and circumstances, the assessee's explanation is not acceptable

Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

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

ITA 1062/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

Karkardooma, Delhi Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2013-14, it appears to me that you:- have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income-which you were required to furnish by a notice given under section ... section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(3)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, No. dated or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish-it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice, -have without

Sureshchandra Jayantilal Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 458/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

after taking into account the reply the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee committed default under Section 271B of the Ct without any reasonable cause and thus levied penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the Penalty Order under Section 271B of the Act, the assessee filed appeal

DCIT, Circle, Yamunanagar vs. M/S Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Yamunanagar

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

return in the facts of the present case was for reasons beyond the control of the assessee and in fact, there was reasonable cause in the late filing of the return within the extended period statutorily available under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act. ………………….. 6.7 Accordingly, considering ... they do not stand as a bar in the facts of a case wherein it can be demonstrated that there was a justifiable and reasonable cause for delay in filing of the return; that the return, which was well within the extended period, as considered

Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi L/R of Late Vobilisetty Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 275/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.275/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt.Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Vobilisetty Venkata Ward-1(1) Satyanarayana Murthy Rajahmundry D.No.2-40-14, Alcot Garden Rajahmundry [Pan : Acxpv6079M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 144Section 69A

before 02.06.2023, but the assessee could file appeal only on 03.11.2023 with the delay of 154 days. I find that there is reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly. I, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi, L/R V.V.Satayanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry his contention and submitted that the assessee was prevented by a genuine and reasonable cause for not prosecuting the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). She further submitted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate her case with material

Aatmaram Baraskar, Bhopal vs. AO Ward 5(3), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradaatmaram Baraskar Ito- Ward 5(3) 15, Vrandavan Nagar, Bhopal Ayodhya Bypass, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpb 7088C Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

original addition made by the AO. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the assesse was having reasonable cause for delay of four days in filing the present appeal; the same is condoned. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That

DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Nishit Capinvest P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1312/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 68

allowing the said submission considering the submission made by the appellant it appears that these companies are group companies and there was a reasonable cause which prevented the appellant filing the documents called for during the assessment. Therefore, the filing of additional document is allowed. 4.2 The findings

M/S. the Bhavasara Kshatriya Co-Operative Society Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mysuru

ITA 981/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 80P

Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore. 12. That the delay of L -c9 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal is due to reasonable cause and on account of circumstances beyond our control and the delay was neither intentional, willful nor deliberate and was occasioned for the reasons stated ... contention is that the assessee is very negligent in its approach for filing the appeal before this Tribunal and also there was no reasonable cause in filing appeal before this Tribunal belatedly. He submitted that the appeal is to be dismissed in limine and for that purpose, he placed reliance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Ad2Pro Media Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the 14 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 935/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 195Section 201Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons stated in the petition for condonation of delay, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the Revenue for late filing of these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay of 37 days

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Ad2Pro Media Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the 14 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 928/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 195Section 201Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons stated in the petition for condonation of delay, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the Revenue for late filing of these appeals. Hence, we ITA Nos.928 and 935/Bang/2023 Page

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Eurostar Diamonds India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5643/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eurostar Diamonds India Pvt Ltd., 710-711, Raheja Chambers Room No. 607, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aacce1920A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271G

justified in the present facts of the case viz., the nature of diamond trade, substantial compliance made by the assessee and the reasonable cause submitted before Transfer Pricing Officer and above all when there is no adjustment made in the Arm’s Length Price, the levy of penalty under section