← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow

In the result all the appeals preferred by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6054/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11 A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17

Section 14A

Delhi High Court withholding of service tax and payment of the same later during the FY 2011-12 cannot be said to be without reasonable cause and payment of the same during the previous year relevant to this assessment year is apparently allowable expenditure of the current assessment year, more

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow

In the result all the appeals preferred by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5601/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11 A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17

Section 14A

Delhi High Court withholding of service tax and payment of the same later during the FY 2011-12 cannot be said to be without reasonable cause and payment of the same during the previous year relevant to this assessment year is apparently allowable expenditure of the current assessment year, more

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow

In the result all the appeals preferred by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3234/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11 A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17

Section 14A

Delhi High Court withholding of service tax and payment of the same later during the FY 2011-12 cannot be said to be without reasonable cause and payment of the same during the previous year relevant to this assessment year is apparently allowable expenditure of the current assessment year, more

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow

In the result all the appeals preferred by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 72/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11 A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17

Section 14A

Delhi High Court withholding of service tax and payment of the same later during the FY 2011-12 cannot be said to be without reasonable cause and payment of the same during the previous year relevant to this assessment year is apparently allowable expenditure of the current assessment year, more

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow

In the result all the appeals preferred by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6242/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11 A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17

Section 14A

Delhi High Court withholding of service tax and payment of the same later during the FY 2011-12 cannot be said to be without reasonable cause and payment of the same during the previous year relevant to this assessment year is apparently allowable expenditure of the current assessment year, more

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Bhrathi Consumer Care Products Pvt Ltd, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 249/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Central Circle-1, Products Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi Lakshmipuram Main Road, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Guntur-522007, Guntur – 522016, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 17/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Vs. Dcit, Products Private Limited, Central Circle-1, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur – 522016, Guntur-522007, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

submissions on 7/7/2021. The Ld. AO rejected the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and found that there is no any reasonable cause for acceptance of cash of Rs. 1.74 Crs by the assessee company from one of its Directors and considered that

Society for Govt. of Odisha Ashok Leyland Hmv Dti, Chhatia/AOP, Jajpur vs. ITO, Exemption, Cuttack

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

ITA 283/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.283/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Society For Govt. Of Odisha Ashok Vs Ito (Exemption), Cuttack Leyland Hmv Driver Training Inst. Village: Vidyadharpur, Chhatia, Jajpur-754023 Pan No. :Aahas 8958 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 12.06.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053666783(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Decided The Appeal Of The Assessee In A Very Casual Manner By Mentioning That Documents Were Not Submitted. It Was Submitted That Adequate Opportunities Have Not Been Granted To The Assessee. It Was Also Submitted That In The Original Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act, There Was No Demand Raised On The Assessee. Subsequently, An Order U/S.154 Of The Act Was Passed On 17.12.2018 Without Issuing Show Cause Notice To The Assessee & Without Hearing The Assessee Wherein A Demand Has Been Raised. It Was The Submission That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Liable To Be Set Aside As Also The Order Passed U/S.154 Of The Act Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan Dash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

along with affidavit, shows that the delay was on account of getting the proper advice from the counsel belatedly. As the assessee has given reasonable cause and the delay was only of 17 days, the delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is disposed

Neelkant Nagda, Udaipur vs. ITO, Wad-2(2), Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.449/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Neelkant Nagda, The Income Tax Officer, 448, Moksh Marg, V Ward-2(2), Udaipur(Raj). Shastri Circle, Udaipur(Raj). S Pan: Acupn 4513 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273B

penalty u/s 271B cannot be levied on the ground that the assesse had not obtained complete audit report, further the assesse has a reasonable cause that the original audit report which was filed on 25.11.2014 had contained all the relevant information AO also not considered this ground on behalf ... section 273B ,and did not consider the cause as reasonable cause ,as a reasonable cause u/s 273B of the IT Act 1961. We had not provided with proper opportunity of being heard by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered reasonable cause in her order of appeal, which

Chryso, Paris vs. DCIT Circle Int. Tax 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 296/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Chryso Paris, Versus Dcit, Circle 3(1)(1), 19, Place De La Resistance International Taxation, 92445, Cedex, Issy Les Delhi. Moulineaux, France. Pan: Aadcc0892N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 154

contents and averments in the affidavit, we are convinced that the delay in filing the appeal before learned first appellate authority was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of learned first appellate authority and direct him to decide the appeal on merits after providing

Gopesh Fabrics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Faridabad

Appeal stands allowed accordingly

ITA 2483/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

replies furnished by assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A),NFAC has erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating reasonable cause for non-compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and hence penalty levied

Ashwinkumar Kailashchand Bajoriya, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1-1, Aklo

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 60/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 060/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ashwinkumar Kailashchand Bajoriya, Murtizapur Road, Akola - 444 004 Pan: Abjpb6524E . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Kumar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115WSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(ii)

foundation for levying any penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Per contra the Ld. DR Smt. Mathur argued that, non-compliance without reasonable cause cannot go scot free, hence the impugned penalty deserves to be sustained. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6 Ashwinkumar Kailashchand Bajoriya, ITA No.060/PUN/2022

M/S B.S.Ispat Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya

statement regarding the receipt of order in the application as well as is notarized affidavit. We find the assessee has to show reasonable cause which prevented the assessee in filing the appeals in time and we find no such explanation in the application as well as notarized affidavit except making

Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Dang, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 408/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.408/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Vs. The Ito, Dang, Ward – 3(1)(1), 79A, Silver Oak Farm, Road Surat No.4, Ghitorni, New Delhi – 110030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acepd3949B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)

Delhi may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice considering that the delay was neither intentional nor willful but due to good and reasonable cause as shown herein above.” 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that since the assessee was shifted from Surat to Delhi therefore, assessee ... Delhi may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice considering that the delay was neither intentional nor willful but due to good and reasonable cause as shown herein above. 7. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue stated that assessee

Krishan Kumar Yadav, Vpo-Gothra Teh-Tijara vs. ITO Ward - Bhiwadi, Alwar

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

ITA 577/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 68

rival submissions as well as going through the contents of the application of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 1 (one) day in filing the present appeal

Govind Lal Choudhary, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 557/JPR/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

well as going through the contents of the application and affidavit of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 106 days in filing the present appeal. 3 Shri

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions as well as going through the contents of the Affidavit of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not filing the appeals within the period of limitation. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 24 days in filing the present appeals

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 517/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions as well as going through the contents of the Affidavit of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not filing the appeals within the period of limitation. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 24 days in filing the present appeals

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 516/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions as well as going through the contents of the Affidavit of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not filing the appeals within the period of limitation. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 24 days in filing the present appeals

Vijayendra Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range 3 Jaipur, Range Three Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 464/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

assessee when the case was called for hearing. On perusal of the adjournment application filed by the ld. Counsel, we find that no reasonable cause has been given for seeking adjournment. Therefore, the application stands dismissed and we have decided to dispose off the matter ex- parte. We have heard

Shiv Edibles Ltd, Kota vs. ACIT Cir-1, Kota

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

ITA 445/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Debang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

rival submissions as well as going through the contents of the application of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal