← 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

Shri Anil Omprakash Mishra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 314/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Anil Om Prakash Mishra, I.T.O., A-281, Shubham Bunglows, Sachin, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Surat-394230. Surat. Pan No. Ajnpm 7661 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

response to various notices issued for levying penalty. The assessee was unable to furnish cogent reason for his failure to bring sufficient and reasonable cause for not getting its account audited under Section 44AB of the Act despite having total receipt beyond threshold limit. Thus, the Assessing Officer was justified

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

appeal during the limitation period. We find that the appellate has not given plausible explanation for delay. There is a no genuine hardship or reasonable cause demonstrated for inordinate huge delay in filing this cross objection. The assessee could not bring on record any plausible cause to demonstrate that

Cinetech Entertainment India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, War-16(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1110/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)

affidavit, I am of the view that delay caused was not due to the deliberate omission the part of assessee. Since there is reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal, the delay caused in filing of appeal is condoned and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits

Kalaben Pramod Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-27(2)(1), Vashi

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

ITA 1104/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1104/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kalaben Pramod Shah बिधम/ Ito-27(2)(1) 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Vashi G-6, Lal Ashish Bldg, Vs. Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar Railway Station, Vashi- East, Mumbai-400077. 400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamps4027P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Mall Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 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. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.12.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) Wherein The Ao Has Added The Entire Purchase & Sale Consideration On Of Rs.26,52,250/- As Income & Ignored The Contention The Profit From The Transaction Should Be Taxed. 3. Regarding The Cause Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal, The Ld. Ar For Assessee, Brought To My Notice That Assessee Is An Individual Who Is More Than 75 Years Old Lady & Her Husband Was Looking After The Commodity Business & Filing Of Return Of Income Etc. However, During The Re-Assessment Proceedings, Her Husband Had By-Pass

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj MallFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 144

could not approach the Ld. AR, which led to the dismissal of the appeal. Taking into consideration, aforesaid facts, we find that there was reasonable cause 3 A.Y. 2011-12 Kalaben Pramod Shah for not appearing before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, by relying ... consideration, as aforestated. No order as to costs.” 4. Since from the facts and circumstances discussed (supra), it has been found that assessee had reasonable cause for not appearing before the AO which led to the passing of the best-judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, accordingly

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 5765/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

appeal during the limitation period. We find that the appellate has not given plausible explanation for delay. There is a no genuine hardship or reasonable cause demonstrated for inordinate huge delay in filing this cross objection. The assessee could not bring on record any plausible cause to demonstrate that

Prakash Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1512/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Prakash Jain, Vs Ito, A-109, Vivek Vihar, Ward-70(1), Phase-2, Delhi-110095. New Delhi. Pan-Bcbpj9645Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Manaktala, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2023

Section 144

frame assessment afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee would not seek any adjournment without reasonable cause and cooperate in the assessment proceedings. Grounds raised by the assessee are thus, allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Simple Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Meerut

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1961/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 148Section 69

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajmera Associates Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1401/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Bledcit4(1)(1), Ajmera Associates Ltd., 63/67, Ajmera House, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Vs. L T Marg, Pathakwadi, Mumbai 400 002. Pan Aadca7062J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Smt Shailja Rai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the cross objection belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the cross objection and admit the same. 5. The facts relating

Aj Energy Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1190/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manvendra Goel, CIT(DR)
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee would cooperate in the proceedings and would not seek adjournment without any reasonable cause. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th June

Navbharat Cheritable Trust, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch

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

ITA 27/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ward-1, Vs. Gujarat, Pin-393115 Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)

Form 10, is found unsubstantiated. No such details and evidences have been placed on record to support said contention. Further it cannot be the reasonable cause to accept the condonation petition for such a huge period of almost 5 years. Moreover, the assessee has not submitted any details and evidences

ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation Limited, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 253/JPR/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Rajasthan State Handloom Development corporation Ltd. condoned as the heavy work load cannot be a reason and the Revenue has failed to establish the reasonable cause. Based on these reasons he submitted the appeal should not be admitted as the same is without any reasonable cause. 4. We have heard

Ravi Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-2(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 266/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohammed (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

parte. Before us the ld. AR for the assessee has filed an affidavit and paper book on going through the affidavit we found a reasonable cause for not appearing before both the proceedings. Taking into consideration the Ravi Prakash Sharma vs. ITO present facts and circumstances of the case

Ravi Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-2(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 265/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohammed (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

parte. Before us the ld. AR for the assessee has filed an affidavit and paper book on going through the affidavit we found a reasonable cause for not appearing before both the proceedings. Taking into consideration the Ravi Prakash Sharma vs. ITO present facts and circumstances of the case

Sarabuild Homes Private Limited, Jalwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 316/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

request vide notices u/s 250 of the Act. Under the given facts and circumstances, since the appellant has failed to advance any reasonable cause for condonation of delay, the appeal is devoid of any merit to warrant its admission. Therefore, the appeal is treated as dismissed as not admitted

Vishal Bansal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 58/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee we are of the view that the assessee has discharged the onus of proving that he has reasonable cause in not bringing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and thus, we condone the delay in filling appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by 872 days

Om Investmenta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3, Rohtak

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

ITA 1493/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Om Investments, Vs Ito, C/O-Vijay Mudgal, Wz-468E, Ward-3, M.S.Block, Gali No.1, Rohtak. Hari Nagar, Newdelhi-110064. Pan-Aabfo8695C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 147

being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that assessee would cooperate in the assessment proceedings and not to seek any adjournment without any reasonable cause. Grounds raised by the assessee are thus, allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Shri Muzaffar Jan Pampori, Srinagrar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -3 ( 2), Srinagar

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

ITA 134/ASR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 144

requested for condonation of delay in submission of appeal in my original Appeal along with Affidavit in support of the same.” 2.1 Considering the reasonable cause, duly supported with the affidavit narrating the facts, the short delay of 8 days is hereby condoned. The appeal is admitted to be heard

Gulmarg Devlopment Authority, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer ( TDS), Srinagar

ITA 109/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 221Section 250

email id of the TIN FACILIATATION CENTRE which caused late communication to DDO and late filing of appeal in turn. Considering the reasonable cause, we condone 4 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) the delay in filing the appeal and admit the captioned five appeals

Gulmarg Devlopment Authority, Baramula vs. Income Tax Oficer ( TDS), Srinagar

ITA 108/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 221Section 250

email id of the TIN FACILIATATION CENTRE which caused late communication to DDO and late filing of appeal in turn. Considering the reasonable cause, we condone 4 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) the delay in filing the appeal and admit the captioned five appeals

Gulmarg Devlopment Authority, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer ( TDS), Srinagar

ITA 107/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 221Section 250

email id of the TIN FACILIATATION CENTRE which caused late communication to DDO and late filing of appeal in turn. Considering the reasonable cause, we condone 4 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) the delay in filing the appeal and admit the captioned five appeals