← 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

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

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

ITA 436/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

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

B.G. Professional Education Society, Jaipur vs. Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 311/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri SL Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it”. It means, if the appellant is not pursuing the appeal without any reasonable cause, it may be presumed that he may not interest in taking the issue seriously before the appellate authority or he 4 BG Professional Education Society

Navab Singh, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1915/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The First Appellate Authority & So As To Make A Plea That The Impugned Assessment Completed Under Section 144/147 Of The Act Was Without Jurisdiction, Illegal, Arbitrary, Improper & Defying The Principle Of Natural Justice To The Petitioner: 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Petitioner'S Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Nfac, Delhi Erred In Law & On Facts, In Confirming The Additions Of Rs.2200000 Made By The Learned Assessing Officer In The Impugned Assessment Order, Based On Suspicion, Surmises & Conjectures Alone

Section 144Section 234ASection 234B

assessee before him. I also note that there is a delay of 172 days in filing the appeal. However, the assessee has given reasonable cause for the delay, that he is of old age and didn't have the necessary support to take care of the Income Tax matters. Upon ... careful consideration, I find that the reasonable cause for the delay attributed by the assessee is not convincing, hence the appeal is dismissed being time barred. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/10/2023. (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi

Sarika Agrawal, Indore vs. The ITO 2(4), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 176/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Ms.Sarika Agrawal, Ito, 53/1, Chatribagh, 2(4), बनाम/ 503, Nidhi Apartment, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan:Apppa8768K Assessee By Shri N.D.Dave & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

have considered the explanation of assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji

The Pr CIT Circle 5 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S M.P.Warehousing & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal

ITA 143/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)

Bench. We have considered the explanation and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the revenue is found to have a reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Placing reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji

M/S. M. P. Council for Vocational Education & Training Bhopal, Bhopal vs. The CIT (Exempyion) Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 177/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 143(3)

have considered the explanation of assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji

M/S. M. P. Council for Vocational Education & Training Bhopal, Bhopal vs. The CIT (Exempyion) Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 176/IND/2022[22016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 143(3)

have considered the explanation of assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji

Shri Jan Sewa Sankalp Sansthan, Sehore vs. Exemption Ward, Bhopal

ITA 265/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Jan Sewa Sankalp Assistant Director Of Sansthan, Income Tax, बनाम/ 16, Cpc, Opp. New Collector Office, Bangalore Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aagas4432 B Assessee By Shri Moksha Solanki, Ca & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 253(5)

raise any objection to assessee’s prayer looking into the reason of delay. We find that the assessee has a reasonable cause for delay in filing present appeal. Placing reliance on provisions of section 253(5) of the act and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition

Shri Ajit Khandelwal, Bhopal vs. The ITO2(3), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 211/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Ajit Khandelwal, Ito बनाम/ E-2/291, Arera Colony, 2(3), Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Acmpk3232C Assessee By Sh Maneesh Vaidya & Ms.Preeti Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

Section 143(3)

have considered the explanation of assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji

Bhagwan Das Rai, Itarsi vs. The ITO Ward-, Itarsi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 16/IND/2023[22017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Bhagwandas Rai, Ito, M/S.Deva Marketing, Ward-2, बनाम/ Hospital Road

Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

audit done. Ld. AR submitted that the section 273B prescribes that no penalty u/s 271B shall be imposed if there is a reasonable cause of default. Ld. AR prayed that the assessee’s bonafide understanding of the nature of business as ‘commission business’ constitutes a reasonable cause, therefore the assessee

Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1936/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2007-08]

appeal before him.” 3. In the case, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the appeal was filed by almost delay of 9 years. The reasonable cause attributed was financial crisis. However, the ld. CIT(A) found that the submissions of the assessee is very cryptic in nature. He has also ... Before me also, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that an opportunity may be granted before the authorities below and he submitted that reasonable cause for delay before the Ld. CIT(A) was financial crisis. On the facts and circumstances of the case and after careful consideration

M/S. Halo Technologies and Training Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- TDS (CPC), Ghaziabad

ITA 1770/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: It.

For Appellant: Ms. Varsha NanwaniFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

time which resulted into delay of 9 days in filing the appeal. Accepting the aforesaid submission of the Appellant we hold that Appellant had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal in time and therefore, delay of 9 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal

Qasim Ul Ulloom Trust, Tonk vs. ITO Ward, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 554/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia (C.A.)&For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

That this present appeal filed before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench with delay of 100 days. 3. Further, it is submitted that the reasonable cause of delay in filing the present appeal was due to the time taken in the process of reapplying for registration ... compliance due to mistake of earlier counsel of assessee-society. In view of abovesubmission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay and kindly remand back the case to CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice

Qasim Ul Ulloom Trust, Tonk vs. ITO Ward, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 548/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia (C.A.)&For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

That this present appeal filed before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench with delay of 100 days. 3. Further, it is submitted that the reasonable cause of delay in filing the present appeal was due to the time taken in the process of reapplying for registration ... compliance due to mistake of earlier counsel of assessee-society. In view of abovesubmission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay and kindly remand back the case to CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice

Phool Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 513/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54

communication of order but there is a delay of 28 days from the date of order. The said delay is thus for a reasonable cause as explained in the affidavit of assessee. It is therefore, requested to kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.” 3.1 The content

Eversmile Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2363/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 147

discharging the duties. Keeping the view overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeals within the prescribed time. Accordingly, in view of the explanation offered by the Assessee, the delay in ITA No.2363-2365

Bhasin Motors India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3695/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Bhasin Motors India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 28, Raja Garden, Ward-4(4), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacb8884C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vikas Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2023 Order

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

provided adequate opportunity of hearing by Ld.CIT(A). The notices sent by Ld.CIT(A) were not received by the assessee. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for not attending the appellate proceedings before Ld.CIT(A). He contended that in the interest of principle of natural justice, an opportunity be granted

Sudheer Chamarthi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 216/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.216/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sudheer Chamarthi Vs. Income Tax Officer 12-17-36/1, Somuvari Street Ward-1(1) Kothapet Guntur Guntur [Pan : Axnpc8454A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1041354665(1) Dated 23.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18 With The Delay Of 163 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Uploaded In E-Filing Portal & It Was Not Served Physically. The Assessee Submitted That All His Income Tax Matters Were Entrusted To A Chartered Accountant, Who Did

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

I.T.A. No.216/Viz/2022,A.Y.2017-18 Sudheer Chamarthi, Guntur I have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee and find that there is a reasonable cause for the delay, therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Shri Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani, Rajkot vs. The ITO(TDS)-2, Rajkot

Accordingly, in our considered view, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence the present appeal is being dismissed as non- maintainable

ITA 21/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 119(2)(a)Section 194Section 194lSection 201Section 201(1)Section 220

nature for grating waiver of interest etc. were not considered the claim favorably in light of the law when it was in vogue on reasonable cause being shown. The decision taken by the Chief CIT (TDS) in the order is not sufficient and was totally laconic with reference ... Accordingly, the assessee requested the Ld. CCIT(TDS) for waiver of interest us 220(2A) of the Act, claiming that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for non-payment of TDS. In appeal, Ld. CCIT(TDS) dismissed the application for waiver of interest filed by the assessee, with the following

Jaisingh H Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2211/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2211/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jaisingh H. Solanki बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(1) 25-C Sonarika Apt, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Road, Mumbai-400004. Chandawadi, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acaps6502R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.02.2023 For Ay. 2010-11 Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For Assessee But Has Filed Written Submission. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is Delay Of 52 Days & The Assessee Has Filed A Sworn Affidavit Dated 12.09.2022. After Going Through The Contents Of The Affidavit, We Are Of The Opinion That There Was Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Hear The Penalty Appeal On Its Own Merit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan (Sr
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has filed a sworn affidavit dated 12.09.2022. After going through the contents of the affidavit, we are of the opinion that there was reasonable cause for belated filing of the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the penalty appeal on its own merit