← 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

Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagar Palika Divyang Bhavan Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2583/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2582 & 2583/Pun/2025 Pimpri Chinchwad Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Mahanagar Palika Divyang Bhavan Foundation, Sr. No.31/1 To 31/5, Pune City, Welfare Center For Disable Pimpri Pf, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaocp4376M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 03.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The It Act Filed On 10.12.2024 & Denying The Application For Approval In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The It Act Filed On 13.12.2024. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of Both Above Captioned Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

proviso is inserted in section 12A(1)(ac) which permits the Commissioner to condone the delay if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application for registration and then such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time. Accordingly, it was requested ... been inserted in section 12A(1)(ac) w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which permits the Commissioner to condone the delay if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application for registration and then such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time. 8. Considering

Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagar Palika Divyang Bhavan Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2582/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2582 & 2583/Pun/2025 Pimpri Chinchwad Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Mahanagar Palika Divyang Bhavan Foundation, Sr. No.31/1 To 31/5, Pune City, Welfare Center For Disable Pimpri Pf, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaocp4376M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 03.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The It Act Filed On 10.12.2024 & Denying The Application For Approval In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The It Act Filed On 13.12.2024. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of Both Above Captioned Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

proviso is inserted in section 12A(1)(ac) which permits the Commissioner to condone the delay if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application for registration and then such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time. Accordingly, it was requested ... been inserted in section 12A(1)(ac) w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which permits the Commissioner to condone the delay if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application for registration and then such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time. 8. Considering