“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

Shehla Akhtar Rangoonwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6538/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 54

undergoing treatment for cancer which eventually took her life on 30.10.2020. So the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed Rs.26 lakhs. We note that the assessee had reasonable cause for not submitting the aforesaid evidence before the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, the impugned confirmation was made by the Ld.CIT(A) to the tune

Akhtar Zain Rangoonwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6537/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 54

ITO - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Laquilla Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3605/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 269TSection 271ESection 273

section 273 of the Act would not come to the rescue of the assessee because the assessee failed to show that there existed a reasonable cause or compulsion for the failure to adhere to the provisions of section 269T of the Act while making the repayment of loan. Therefore ... held in that case (Triumph International Finance Pvt Ltd) that no penalty under section 271E shall be imposed for contravention of section 269T, if reasonable cause for such contravention is shown by assessee as per section 273B of the Act, then and upheld action of Tribunal deleting the penalty

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

submitted that there were only two transactions of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.2.40 lakhs both of which were carried out of commercial expediency. There was reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act and therefore penalty ought not to have been levied on the facts and circumstances of the case ... consequently the provisions of section 269T are not applicable on the' facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Appellant was prevented by reasonable cause and therefore pursuant to section 273B of the Act no penalty can be levied on the facts and circumstances of the case

Veena G. Netto, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-57, Mumbai

ITA 1594/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhveena G. Netto Vs. Commissioner Of Income B-207, Hill Crest,-1, Tax (Appeals)-57 Raheja Vihar, Opp Mumbai – 400 021 Chandevali Farm Road, Powai, Mumbai – 400072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ahkpn7043F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 144Section 234BSection 234CSection 271

control. 3. Heard both the side and perused the material on record. We observed that assessee has demonstrated from above facts that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the instant appeal. The hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katigir Ors. Civil

Geeta Udyog, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 226/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgeeta Udyog Vs. Asst. Director Of Income 404, Gupta Bhavan, Tax, Cpc, Bengluru Ahmedabad Street, Centralized Processing Carnac Bunder, Centre, Income Tax Mumbai – 400009 Department, Bengaluru 560500 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfg1369H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

days and the same may be condoned. 3. Heard both the side and perused the material on record. We consider that there was a reasonable cause for marginal delay in filing the appeal because of non receipt of order of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we condone the delay

Shri Sanjay Gopal Pandit, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1902/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrio.P. Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249(2)Section 250

assessee came to know about the outstanding demand. The learned CIT(A) vide separate impugned orders held that the assessee did not adduce any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing a valid appeal within the 30 days’ time limit under Shri Sanjay Gopal Pandit ITA Nos.1902 to 1904/Mum./2021

Rekha Prakash Niichani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1734/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

total income. Therefore, the ground no.5 is not considered for adjudication.” 5. Upon careful consideration I note that the assessee’s plea of reasonable cause of suffering from cancer for not providing the necessary details before the authorities below is cogent. Hence, I deem it appropriate to remit the issue

Joseph Peter Galiaud, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1727/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Section 127(3)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

these facts assessee seeks condonation of delay of over 1300 days. 4. Upon careful consideration, I do not find any cogency in the reasonable cause attributed. Hence, the delay is not liable to be condoned. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as time barred. 5. In the result appeal

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7516/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

despite service of notices. 4. At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of 73 days in filing the appeal. For reasonable cause it has been submitted by a person claiming to be Chief Finance Officer of the assessee that learned CIT(A) order was misplaced ... staff. We find that above reasonable cause does not inspire any confidence. The same is liable to be rejected. Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine as time barred. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2022. (RAHUL CHAUDHARY

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld.AR has filed affidavit of assessee dated 02/02/2022 in support of the reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly. He submitted that the appeal should have been filed on or before 09/06/2019, however due to certain financial crisis assessee ... find any mala fide intention on behalf of assessee by delaying the present appeal to be filed before the Tribunal. As a reasonable cause made out by assessee, which has not been countered by the revenue with any contrary materials, in the interest of justice we condone the delay

M/S. Slv Housing Development Corporation, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 19/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V Chavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Tribunal on the grounds that the bad professional relationship with the auditors resulting in delay in filing the auditor report is a ‘reasonable cause’. The Ld AR therefore prayed that the underlying issue in the present case also the same and hence the ratio of the decision of the coordinate ... examined the claim of the assessee with regard to wrong professional advice and had deleted the penalty u/s.271B stating that it is a ‘reasonable cause’. The assessee in the present appeal also contending the levy of penalty on the same premise that the assessee was under the bona fide belief

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

applicable between the trust and the trustee wherein the trustee is maintaining a running account with the trust which is the reasonable cause u/s 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the fact and circumstances of the case, under the provision of the law, and under the judicial ... arguments of the appellant did not find favor with the AO. He noted that the appellant had failed to show any urgency or any reasonable cause for accepting cash deposits in the bank account by the Managing trustee. He noted that the cash deposits

Shri. Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 680/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43ASection 43B

other hand, Ld.DR submitted that the assessee only build up a story to condone the delay, there is no reasonable cause for inordinate delay, which shall not be condoned. In this regard, Ld.DR relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case ... application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we are of the 6 considered view that the assessee has failed to make out a sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation of delay and reject the petition for condonation of delay. Being so, we refrain from going into other grounds of appeal

Smt. Darshana, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismisssed

ITA 136/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

assessee. The effective reasoning given by the assessee reads as under:- “- that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to sufficient and reasonable cause as under:- - That the Appellant was not aware of the Assessment order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - That the appellant wished ... assessment order already passed in the appellant’s case. - That the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to sufficient and reasonable cause.” A perusal of the reasons given by the assessee would show that the assessee has not given any reason at all for filing the present appeal

DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Lodha Developers Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3113/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

search and seizure and otherwise. The court had also held that before levying penalty under these provisions, the assessee can plead presence of reasonable cause and penalty levying authority has to give a finding that there is no reasonable cause. M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd., (Earlier known as M/s. Lodha Developers ... repayment of loans / deposits by a mode otherwise than account payee cheque / bank draft, prima facie attract the provision of Sec. 26955/T subject to reasonable cause as defined u/s.273B (para 22 of the decision). The court, however, has clearly laid down in paras 23 & 24 of the said decision

DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Konwn As to M/S.Lodha Developers Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3047/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

Sri. Suhas Suresh Shet, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

duly explained by the assessee before the CIT(A) in both the cases. However, he rejected the condonation petition holding that there was no reasonable cause for filing these appeals belatedly before him. Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed that the delay may be condoned and appeal may be admitted ... whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessees was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeals. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay

Sri. Suhas Suresh Shet, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 607/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1145/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

Income Tax returns. • The learned Assessing Officer has levied penalty ignoring the above submission by the appellant that the delay was due to a reasonable cause which is the appellant's genuine belief that being statutory body it is not required to file income tax return ... accounts audited, but in assessee's case the assessee has not intentionally or deliberately failed to get his accounts audited, it was due to reasonable cause which the assessee has proved by way of letters written to department dated 10.01.99 and 10.09.2000 for knowing the tax liability