“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

M/S Marathon India Ltd., Rajasthan vs. Smt. Pratima Kaushik, PCIT-1, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 235/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Jain, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 338Section 80Section 801E

automatic right but requires the person requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of delay and demonstrate a reasonable cause. The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. ‘’Sufficient Cause’’ cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence

Shilpkars Clothing Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT-22(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1503/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhshilpkars Clothing Vs. Acit-22(2), Company, 702, Rna Kutir, Room No. 417, 4 Th Floor, 14Th Road, Chembur, Tower No. 6, Vashi Mumbai – 400071 Railway Station Building, Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai - 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ablfs1537J Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharmesh Shah & Jigna Jain Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Dated 21.03.2022 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: (Grounds) “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reopening Of Assessment Was Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases By Working Of Peak Credit Amounting To Rs.1,17,10,542/- 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Granting Adequate Opportunity To The Appellant & Dismissing The Appeal. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To Add, Amend, Alter, Delete All Or Any Of The Forgoing Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Clothing Company Vs. ACIT-22(2) Looking to the above facts and material placed in the paper book we consider that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the impugned appeal, therefore, we condone the delay in filing this appeal. 3. Fact in brief is that return

Shri Arnesh Kumar Shakar Ex. Mla, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 6/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54F

case of Suo Motu WP (C) No.3 of 2020 dated 23/03/2020. The ld. DR has accepted the submission of the ld. AR. Reasonable cause is explained. So, the delay for 683 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That neither in facts

Bhushan Aviation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1423/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Bhushan Aviation Limited, Vs Acit, S-2, F Block, International Trade Circle-4(2), Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aadcb2842F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 Order

Section 260Section 271BSection 44A

accounts and submitting them to the Auditors, both the statutory as well as tax audit got delayed. It was contended that there was a reasonable cause for such delay. However, the contention of the assessee was not accepted by the AO. He levied penalty ... person or the assessee as the case may be for any failure refer to in the said provision, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure, no penalty can be levied. In the case in hand, it is the contention of the assessee that the Audit

Novaerum Automotive Private Ltd., U.P vs. AO Ward 18(3), Delhi

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

ITA 784/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Dharkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263

Further, due to COVID Pandemic there was delay in filing the appeal. After hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly the delay of 351 days is condoned. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessment under section

Omvir Mehta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1478/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Omvir Mehta, Vs Ito, B-133, Mehta Niwas, Opp. Sec-4, Ward-3(2), Surya Vihar, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana-122001. Pan-Amdpm0018K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri I.P.Bansal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

making assessment afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee would not seek adjournment without reasonable cause. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Shri Ankit Khandelwal, Indore vs. The Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ankit Khandelwal, Assessing Officer, 06, Shubham Palace National Faceless बनाम/ Colony, Asssessment Centre, Chhota Bangarda, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bfepk1890J Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

covered by section 273B which provides that no penalty shall be imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) if the failure has occurred due to a reasonable cause. Ld. AR submitted that initial phase of on-line interface adopted by department coupled with service upon the ID of previous counsel of assessee ... Page 2 of 4 Shri Ankit Khandelwal v. AO,NFAC Assessment year 2017-18 and no service in physical mode to assessee, constitutes a reasonable cause for non-compliance of the notices. Therefore, the assessee should be given benefit of Section 273B and should be exonerated from penalty

ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 68

amount to a punitive measure. The appellate authority may well undertake to make good such omission. Here in the present case, the appellant has reasonable cause also for admission of additional evidence as evident from the fact that the issue of these evidences was first time raised on 25.03.2015 just ... before the completion of the assessment. Thus, it appears that the appellant has reasonable cause in ensuring compliance. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for admission of additional evidence. Hence, all the documents submitted by the appellant are admitted for deciding this appeal

Shree Modasa Ekda Visha Khadayata Kovadia Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1580/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1579 & 1580/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2022-23) Shree Modasa Ekda Vs. Cit (Exemption) Visha Khadayata Kovadia Room No. 601, 6 Th Floor, Mandal, B-02, Ground Mtnl Telephone Floor, Govind Govardhan Exchange, Cumballa Hill, Chs, Popat Niwas Peddar Road, Tardeo Compound, Mathuradas Mumbai - 400026 Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai – 400067 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaits3618L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

Ekda Visha Khadayata Kovadia Vs. CIT (Exemption) side of the assessee. After perusal of the material on record, we find that there is a reasonable cause for not making compliance before the ld. CIT(exemption) as discussed supra in this order, therefore, in the interest of justice we restore this

Shree Modasa Ekda Visha Khadayata Kovadia Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1579/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

Gurdip Singh Kapur Legal Heir Smt.Nirmal Kapur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle -2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2616/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late Gurdip Singh Kapur, Versus Acit, Circle 2(1)(2), Through Legal Heir-Smt. Nirmal International Taxation, Kapur, D-6/8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Cygpp2489G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. & Sh. Vikram Kakkar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 54

consumed time, the delay occurred. Considering the submissions of the assessee, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds, however

Ours Youth Club, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.22/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ours Youth Club Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-19-17, Bc Colony Agraharam Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vijayanagaram [Pan : Aaaao2600H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

deliberate. I have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee and I find there is a genuine and reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly. I, therefore condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an Association

Bijender Lather, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sonipat

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1377/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

consider the same. In my considered view the penalty u/s 271A(1)(d) is not automatic. If the assessee could show the reasonable cause for non-compliance, in that event the AO should not levy the penalty. It is the contention of the assessee that AO through National Faceless Assessment

Viney Corporation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1409/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Viney Corporation Ltd., Vs Acit, E-872, 1St Floor, Saraswati Vihar, Circle-26(2), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacv0446L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Ms. Swati Joshi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(1)(iia)

also pursuing remedy u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of the order. Ld.CIT DR opposed these submissions and submitted that there is no reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 2.1. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available

Ramchandra Mangilal Sarathe, Khandwa vs. ITO-I Khandwa, Khandwa

In the result, the appeal of the assesse for A

ITA 654/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramchandra Mangilal Ito-1 Sarathe Khandwa Gram Mathela Vs. Khandwa

Section 254

filing of appeal before your office and oblige.” 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not explained a reasonable cause for such inordinate delay in filing present appeal. He has objected to the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 5. We have ... cause of delay explained by the assesse of not having knowledge of income tax law is very vague and cannot be considered as a reasonable cause much less sufficient cause. 6. In the case in hand it is not an ordinary delay in filing the appeal which could be explained

M/S Satec Envir Engineering (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1308/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)

Section 250(6)

dark about the exparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in both appeals, we condone the delay for filing the appeals. And since reasonable cause has been made out for non-appearance/filing of written submission/relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(A), and since

M/S Satec Envir Engineering (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1307/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)

Section 250(6)

ACIT, Circl-43(1), New Delhi vs. Ujala Credit Co- Operative Society Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9259/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Agarwal, CA & Ms. Rema Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144

case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471. He submitted that looking to the facts that there was reasonable cause for such delay. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Having considered the submissions made

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 366/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

case of Vijayaben G. Zalavadia vs. JCIT in ITANos.458 to 463/Ahd/2020. 6. Ld. AR has further submitted that the assesse was having a reasonable cause for taking the loan in cash and repayment of the same in cash. As the assesse has taken this loan for purchase of house because ... shown in the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal. Moreover, the assessee had taken a plea before the Assessing Officer that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee to have made direct payment of Rs. 14,02,600/- to M/s. Babyloan Builders Private Ltd., Gurgaon. It was pleaded that

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 365/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E