← 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

Manmohan Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 8380/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 68

giving proper opportunity to file the information before the AO. 3. It is contended that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the reasonable cause and the complete absence of mens rea while confirming the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c). 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend

Manmohan Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-45(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 8379/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 68

giving proper opportunity to file the information before the AO. 3. It is contended that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the reasonable cause and the complete absence of mens rea while confirming the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c). 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend

Sanjeev Dhawan, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 63(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2690/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sanjeev Dhawan Vs Income-Tax Officer, 10103/3, Pul Bangash, Azad Market, Ward 63(1), New Delhi. Delhi-110006 Pan- Aagpd4848M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Rajesh Gupta Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2022

Section 80I

Private Limited Vs 1TO 1TA No. 6250/Del/2013” it was held by ITAT Delhi that if additional evidence cannot be produced before AO for a reasonable cause by assessee, the CIT (A) must admit the additional evidences and assessee must be given an afresh opportunity of being heard. In the case

Shashikala Korvadi Ramachandra, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 615/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarismt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT(DR)
Section 25Section 54

time was not acceptable since the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A cannot be claimed as a matter of right without establishing the reasonable cause as how the Appellant was prevented from producing the relevant evidence before the AO. In this regard the assessee submits that ... outrightly rejected the admission of additional evidenced and observed that the assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for not filing those additional evidences before assessment proceedings. In our opinion, the assessee has explained reasons for not filing the above additional evidence before the AO. The CIT(A) ought

Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhiwani vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal

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

ITA 6076/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(K)

deductees would be given seamlessly. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for levy of penalty as there was no reasonable cause on the part of appellant for committing the default nor has the appellant justified the delay in filing of return, with any genuine reasons ... inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and since the assessee had already deposited the tax deducted at source, on the same day of deduction, there was reasonable cause in the hands of the assessee in not depositing the return in Form No.27A and the said default needs to be condoned. Even otherwise, following

Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhiwani vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal

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

ITA 6075/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(K)

deductees would be given seamlessly. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for levy of penalty as there was no reasonable cause on the part of appellant for committing the default nor has the appellant justified the delay in filing of return, with any genuine reasons ... inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and since the assessee had already deposited the tax deducted at source, on the same day of deduction, there was reasonable cause in the hands of the assessee in not depositing the return in Form No.27A and the said default needs to be condoned. Even otherwise, following

Sadaram Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4844/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyai.T.A. Nos. 4844 To 4846/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs. Ito-19(3)(2) Sadaram Patel Room No. 16, 1St Floor Matru Mandir 42/44, Matru Ashish Mumbai-400 007 Building, 4Th Kumbharwada Mumbai-400 004 Pan : Aaspp2283J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sadaram Patel 4. Upon careful consideration, I note that there is a delay of 478 days in filing these appeals. In the submission, reasonable cause has been attributed to the non- cooperation of an unnamed consultant and the assessee having less knowledge in this regard. I find that this

Sri. Nagaraj Venkataramanappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 458/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 44A

days in filing the present appeal. Having regard to the submissions made in the petition, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts relating

Siddhanath Chemicals India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 810/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesiddhanath Chemicals Vs. Ito – 15(3)(3) India Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan Silver Birch, Vasant Mumbai – 400020 Garden, Near Swapna Nagari, Mulund West, Mumbai – 400080. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcs5278N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.Vivek Upadhay. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-24, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Vivek Upadhay. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148oSection 69A

appeal by the assessee with the Honble Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit mentioning the reasonable cause. We are satisfied with the sufficient cause of Siddhanath Chemicals India P ltd, Mumbai. delay which is neither willful nor wanton and the Ld.DR

Igloo Dairy Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)- 59, Mumbai

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

ITA 2024/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleigloo Dairy Services Pvt Vs. Cit(A)-59 Ltd, Room No. 1000B, 703, Dalamal House, Smt. Kg Mittal 206 J. Bajaj Road, Ayurvedic Hospital, Nariman Point, Mumbai Charni Road, Mumbai – 400021. – 400 002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr5175Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Rupika Mishra. Ar Respondent By : Mr.R A Dhyani. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai Passed U/S 200A & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Rupika Mishra. ARFor Respondent: Mr.R A Dhyani. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 246

assessee has to file an application for condonation of delay in filling the appeal with the Igloo Dairy Services, Mumbai. sufficient and reasonable cause with the Appellate Authority. Accordingly,we direct the CIT(A) to consider the application as per the law and decide the issue on merits. Further

Giovani Fashion Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 198/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Giovani Fashion Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Advocate Kanika Jain, Circle-10(1), D-80, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaccg6540N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.01.2022

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld.CIT(A). She further undertook that no adjournment would be sought without a reasonable cause. 3. Per contra, Ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed these submissions and supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has been thoroughly negligent

Smt.Snehalatha Surana, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 890/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 133Section 40A(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

assessment and hence they were produced before Ld CIT(A) as additional evidences. Thus, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in not producing those letters before the A.O. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we admit the additional evidences. Since these evidences

S. Narayanan (HUF), Karaikudi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 513/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: None
Section 139Section 271Section 271F

reply of assessee sent in response to the notice and thus dropped the proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the return of income in as much as the assessee was more than 75 years ... assessee had no intention of not filing the return or paying the taxes due in time. It is also evident that the assessee had reasonable cause for not paying the taxes due in time and for non-filing of return in time, which was subsequently complied with delay and qualifies

Chhabra Triple Five Fashions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

ITA 7511/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A N

M/S Green Orchard Farm House, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 918/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Green Orchard Farm Houses, The Deputy #10/1, Lakshminarayana Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, Palace Road, Central Circle – 2[2], Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aagfg4507Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. Ramakrishnan, Ca : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11 For Assessment Year 201213. 2. At The Outset, Ld.Ar Raised Following Legal Issue Challenging The Validity Of The Assessment Order Passed As A Notice U/S. 143(2) Was Issued Beyond A Period Of Six Months. The Legal Issue Is Raised By An Application Dated 29.03.2018 Seeking Admission Of Additional Grounds As Under:

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CA
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

other hand, Ld.DR submitted that assessee had occasion before authorities below to raise the issues and that no reasonable cause has been made out for not raising these grounds on earlier occasion. We have heard the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the records placed before

Ganeshan Manimaran, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Bangalore

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

ITA 351/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Ganeshan Manimaran, Vs. Ito, No.405, Elegantsplendor 102 1St Floor, Ward – 1(2)(2), 7Th Main, Hrbr Layout, 1St Block, Bengaluru. Kalyanagar, Bengaluru – 560 043. Pan : Acxpm 9353 R Assessee By : Shri. Sanjay B Chikkamath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.05.2021 Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.11,54,750/-. The Assessee Had Deposited Cash In 2 Bank Accounts Maintained By Him In Canara Bank, Cox Town, Bengaluru, Totaling A Sum Of Rs.30,30,318/-. The Assessee Was Called Upon To Explain The Source Of Funds Out Of Which The Aforesaid Cash Deposits Were Made Especially During The Demonetization Period. Since There Was No Response From The Assessee, The Cit(A) Added A Sum Of Rs.30,30,318/- As Unexplained Cash Deposits Under Section 68 Of The Act & Computed Tax Liability As Per The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay B Chikkamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 115BSection 249Section 68

However there was no affidavit of concerned CA has been filed that for filing appeal the appellant has instructed him but due to any reasonable cause the CA could not able to file the appeal. Therefore claim of the appellant cannot be accepted only on the basis of self sworn

Sohiab, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3863/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

upon the assessee or reasonable time was not granted to attend the proceedings. 3.6 By ignoring the fact that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to attend the assessment proceedings as the mother of the assessee was seriously ill and ultimately died on 27th March, 2018. 3.7 By ignoring

Ashu Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Ghaziabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9511/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Ashu Tyagi Vs Ito C/O. Sanjeev Anand & Associates 77, Ward-1 (1) Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Ahqpt9609R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021

Section 147Section 250(2)Section 69

clear that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte to the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a reasonable cause for none appearing before the CIT(A), he submitted that he undertakes to appear before Ld.CIT(A) and not to seek adjournment. I have

Azad Singh, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward - 1, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 307/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Sh. Azad Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, 745, Jhajjar Road, Ward -1 Sampla, Rohtak Rohtak Pan : Ajtpk7760M

Section 144Section 148

make de novo assessment, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Assessee is hereby directed not to seek any adjournment, without any reasonable cause and co-operate in the assessment proceedings. 5. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated hereinabove. Above decision

Ganga Jamuna Culture Foundation, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

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

ITA 1104/DEL/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 12ASection 80G

restored to Ld.CIT(E) for decision afresh. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee would not seek any adjournment without any reasonable cause. 7. Per contra, Ld.CIT DR, Shri Vinay Kumar Karan, strongly opposed these submissions and submitted that the assessee was thoroughly negligent. Therefore, the Ld.CIT ... that Ld.CIT(E) affords reasonable opportunity for hearing to the assessee and the assessee is directed not to seek any adjournment without any reasonable cause or in the nature of medical emergency. 12. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced