← 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

Raj Kumar Khatik, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Sagar

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

ITA 13/JAB/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraj Kumar Khatik, Vs Ito, Fresh Vegetable Commission Ward-3, Sagar Agent, Sabji Mandi, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cefpk7387R Assessee By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the present case, we find that the assessee could not comply the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act due to a reasonable cause. The explanation of the assessee is satisfactory and therefore, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and delete

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- Satna vs. Shri Jammu Beg

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 196/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

made for the purpose of business exigencies and are not in the nature of loans but to meet the business requirements and explained the reasonable cause. Whereas the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations and levied penalty of Rs. 1,34,37,980/- and passed the order u/s 271D ... deleting the penalty at Para 6.1.8 to Para7 of the order as under: 6.1.8 The next issue is whether there has been existence reasonable cause. The transaction is between the husband and wife. In fact the expenditure has been mainly incurred by the wife of the appellant on behalf

ACIT -14 (2), Mumbai vs. Redwood I.T. Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1643/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

levied. However, the assessee had raised an oral ground before the Tribunal under Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules contending that there was ‘reasonable cause’ for the assessee in accepting and repaying the loan otherwise than by way of Account payee 2 M/s. Redwood I.T. Services Pvt. Ltd. cheques ... wherein the Tribunal recalled its earlier order for the purpose of adjudicating the contention of the assessee on the issue of existence of reasonable cause or not in violating the provisions of section 269SS/269T of the Act in accepting/repaying loan otherwise than by way of Account payee cheque. Accordingly, this

M/S. Giiraj Spintex Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bhilwara

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 211/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 (Through Virtual Mode) M/S. Giriraj Spintex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer, B-18, Gokul, Basant Vihar, Ward-1, Bhilwara. Bhilwara. Pan: Aabgg3426G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Priyansh Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajeev Mohan, Jcit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Priyansh Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

parties and perusing materials on record, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal was due 2 to reasonable cause. Accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. When the appeal was called out, at the very outset, learned counsel

Javed Khan, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 753/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Javed Khan, Vs Ito, H.No.35, Street No.4, Ward-35(1), Aram Park, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 031. Pan: Bmxpk5858C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Javed Rasheed Siddiqui, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri Javed Rasheed Siddiqui, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 2Section 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

treating the mistake of DDO i.e. quoting of wrong PAN on the I.T. Portal and in his account related to the assesse as a reasonable cause in terms of S. 273B of the Act which is the only and main root cause due to which the assesse remained fail ... assessee argued that the authorities below were not justified in imposing the penalty and sustaining the same. He contended that there was reasonable cause for not filing the return of income. He contended that he had given correct PAN to the DDO as the assessee is a government employee serving

Chandra Shekhar Carprnter, Agar Malwa vs. The ITO, Ward, 1-1, Ujjain

ITA 246/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoa.Y. 2009-10

Section 148

rural area and the impugned order was not received by the assessee in time I am satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice

Hasmukhbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Vapi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

deemed that the assessee had concealed his particulars of income. In view of above, the Assessing Officer held that assessee has without any reasonable cause ‘concealed his income’ to the extent of Rs.2,97,79,023/- and evaded the tax thereon within the meaning

Vivek Kumar Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward Singrauli, Singrauli

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

ITA 54/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, 14/357, Sanjay Nagar Singrauli, Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 274(2)Section 3

appeal: The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(d) without considering the citations given to prove the reasonable cause for non compliance to notices issued u/s 142(1). Vivek Kumar Singh. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not accepting the claim ... various dates and the assessee could not complied with the notices. Whereas the A.O observed that the assessee has not disclosed the reasonable cause for non compliance to the notices and the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations filed in the proceedings and levied a penalty of Rs.20

Muhammadsabir Abdulkarim Katpicewala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 489/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.488 & 489/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Muhammadsabir Abdulkarim Income Tax Officer Katpicewala Vs. Ward-2(2)(3) Surat, Aaykar H.No. 2092, Opp. Champa Masjid Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Sindhi Wad, Bhagat Talao, Surat- New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395003 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeupa 1727 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 14/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2023

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

other hand, Learned Senior-DR for the Revenue raised objection that assessee was grossly negligent in his approach. The assessee has not explained reasonable cause for non-appearance before NFAC/Ld CIT(A), therefore both the appeals may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties. We note that order

Muhammadsabir Abdulkarim Katpicewala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 488/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.488 & 489/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Muhammadsabir Abdulkarim Income Tax Officer Katpicewala Vs. Ward-2(2)(3) Surat, Aaykar H.No. 2092, Opp. Champa Masjid Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Sindhi Wad, Bhagat Talao, Surat- New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395003 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeupa 1727 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 14/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2023

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

other hand, Learned Senior-DR for the Revenue raised objection that assessee was grossly negligent in his approach. The assessee has not explained reasonable cause for non-appearance before NFAC/Ld CIT(A), therefore both the appeals may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties. We note that order

Dinesh India Company, Surat vs. Assistnat Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(2), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 381/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Dinesh India Company, A.C.I.T., 5019, World Trade Centre, Ring Circle-1(2), Vs. Road, Surat-395001. Surat. Pan No. Aajfd 9144 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10ASection 254(1)

their favour. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the parties, we find that the assessee has shown reasonable cause for condoning the delay, therefore, the delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts

Sedu Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 383/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 147Section 250

factum of ex-parte order came to knowledge. 6. The the delay in filing the form 36 is bona fide & unintentional and backed by reasonable cause. It is therefore, humbly prayed to kindly condone the delay of 40 days in filing Form 36 and allow admission of appeal and oblige ... days in filing form 36 by the appellate. 6. That the delay in filing appeal in form 36 is bonafide, unintentional & backed by reasonable cause. 7. That I shall remain vigilant in future. Deponent VERIFICATION 1. Sedu Ram Meena, the appellant do hereby declare that what is stated above

Ishwardas Satyanarayan Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2058/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleishwardas Satyanarayan Gupta V. Ito – Ward – 41(3)(2) Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 B1002, Mahindra Eminent G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Near Patkar College Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400104 Pan: Aejpg5040F (Appellant) (Respondent)

raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The appellant request that delay in filing of an appeal is condoned. The appellant has a reasonable cause for not filing of an appeal in time. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of interest

M/S. Nobal Welfare Society, Fazilka vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 234/ASR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Sept 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

initial year of shift towards digital and electronic mode, the mistake appears to be bona-fide. The assessee has been able to show reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.” The counsel further placed reliance on the judgment delivered ... through portal, which the assessee could access, nor the same were in the knowledge and, as such, the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in complying with the notices as sent by the Ld.CIT (Exemptions). Further, no intimation about the notice was sent through email/SMS to the assessee

M/S. Nobal Welfare Socity, Fazilka vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 233/ASR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Sept 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

initial year of shift towards digital and electronic mode, the mistake appears to be bona-fide. The assessee has been able to show reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.” The counsel further placed reliance on the judgment delivered ... through portal, which the assessee could access, nor the same were in the knowledge and, as such, the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in complying with the notices as sent by the Ld.CIT (Exemptions). Further, no intimation about the notice was sent through email/SMS to the assessee

Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 99/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani V Income Tax Officer Agrasen Chowk S Ward-1(1), Bilaspur Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495 001. Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Agmpc 8368H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.02.2023 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2014-15, Arises From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.09.2022. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271B Imposed By Learned Assessing Officer.”

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

failing to do so, the assessee would be penalized under section 271B of the Income Tax Act. The appellant failed to submit any reasonable cause for failure to comply the provision of section 44AB of the Act, therefore, the penalty imposed by the assessee was confirmed

M/S. Kandla Energy and Chemicals Ltd., Village Devaliya, Tal. Anjar(Kutch) vs. Add. CIT, Gandhidham Range, Gandhidham(Kutch)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 399/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92CSection 92E

days from the receipt of draft order. (3) The learned DRP has erred in dismissing the objection without considering the facts and circumstances and reasonable cause under which the appellant could not file the objection before the AO within the specified period, even though the objection was filed well within

Saleem Ahmed Khan, Boon Electronic, Corporation Market Naudara Bridge, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No 88/Jab/2022 is not maintainable, ITA

ITA 88/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri H.S Modh, Advocate,ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

various dates, whereas the assessee could not complied with the notices and the assessee has not disclosed the reasonable cause for non compliance to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act therefore the AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 12. Aggrieved by the penalty

Sparsh Association of Development Professionals & Consultants, Rewa vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Rewa

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

ITA 105/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe.Adv.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta.Sr.DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

matrix of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the facts of hardship and the reasonable cause for delay in uploading the Audit Report in Form.No.10B due to technical glitches. Further the Ld. AR explained that the delay

Shri Namiyun Parswanath Jain, Swetamber Manidhari Trust, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Jabalpur

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

ITA 100/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sri Rahul Bardia.CA. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154

Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in not considering Sri Namiyun Paraswanath Jain Swetamber Manidhari Trust. Jabalpur . the facts of hardship and the reasonable cause for delay in uploading the Audit Report in Form.No.10B. Further the Ld. AR explained that the delay is not an wanton