“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

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Hindusthan National Glass and Industrieslimited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 338/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148ASection 14ASection 250

appeal before the Tribunal for the sake of substantial justice. On going through the application, we are satisfied that the Revenue had sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

Santosh Kumar Ramlaxman Yadav, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5123/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 144Section 148Section 151ASection 69

K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this principle had condoned the delay of nearly 21 years

Raj Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 341/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250

this the appeal shall ever pray.” 1.2 On going through the petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay; therefore, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Mandya Karnataka vs. Income Tax Officer Ward1 & Tps Mandya, Mandya

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

ITA 1618/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Near Sathygraha The Income Tax Soudha, Officer, B M Road, Ward – 1 & Tps, Shivapura Maddur, Mandya. Vs. Mandya Dt – 571 429. Pan: Abnpn7222R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 156Section 234ASection 249Section 271ASection 69

circumstances of the case 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal under section 249 belatedly. Page 2 of 6 3. The learned CIT(A) and AO have erred

Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Malpani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5023/MUM/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

being filed which is belated by 346 days. The impugned appeal is thus delayed on account of the reasons mentioned hereinabove which constitute reasonable cause and it is respectfully submitted that the delay is not wilful or unreasonable. 8. The Applicant submits that under these circumstances the appeal ... file of the Ld. Commissioner for the decision afresh, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the assessee had reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Ld. Commissioner and the assessment order is on merit and the assessee has filed the relevant documents in support

Shri Rahul Sumerchand Dodal L/H Shri Sumerchand R Dodal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, however with liberty as mentioned above

ITA 2328/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 250

filing the present appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. The assessee submits that the above delay in filing the appeal was on account of reasonable cause. 2. The appellate order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 passed for A.Y 2014-15 by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was not received

Gopal Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. ITO(OSD) Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2290/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Manish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

notice had in fact 'been communicated to the assessee and hence the cause of non-appearance in fact amounts to be a reasonable cause. 5. The appellant, craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal during the course of hearing. 3. Briefly ... appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed these contentions, observing that the AO had provided four distinct opportunities and that the appellant failed to prove "reasonable cause" for the failure. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the behavior was consistently non-compliant and upheld the AO’s penalty order, dismissing

Aradhya Ghosh, Kolkata vs. Deptuy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-67(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5210/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Shri Srinath L, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 270A

condoning the delay. 5. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time

Nilons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Jcti Range 2, Pune

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

ITA 1267/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Smt. N. C. Shilpa

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

hence, the Id A.O. was justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271E. 4] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in repaying the loans in violation of the provisions of section 269T and therefore, no penalty u/s 271E ... that the transactions between the assessee and Sanskar Recipes Pvt. Ltd. were genuine and duly accounted in the books and since there was a reasonable cause on the part of the appellant while entering into the above transactions with Sanskar Recipes Pvt. Ltd. no penalty u/s 271E was leviable

Achanak Associates Realtors Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1221/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

delay of 535 days in filing of the appeal and the reasons given by the assessee in the condonation petition does not contain any reasonable cause for such delay. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Achanak Associates Realtors Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1220/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-, Cuddalore vs. M. Ramesh Jewellers, Tirukoyilure

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the cross- appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 587/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

filed. After considering the affidavit and the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

Ganapathi Kanagasabai, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward 1, Vellore

ITA 2856/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

appeal by the assessee. After considering the Affidavit filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice

Geetham Steels Pvt. Ltd., Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 2835/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: 16.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194A

perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal

Geetham Steels Pvt. Ltd., Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 2834/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: 16.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194A

M Ramesh Jewellers, Tirukoilur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the cross- appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1539/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

Jm Financial Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-Ward-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6558/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. Reported in 153 ITR 596 considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this principle had condoned the delay of nearly

Jm Financial Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem) Ward 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6557/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

Rajeev Chauhan, Gadiwan Mainpuri vs. ITO Ward2(4)5 Mainpuri, Kachehari Road Mainpuri

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

ITA 438/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

Considered rival submissions and material placed on record. 9. After considering the facts available on record, I observe that the reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before CIT(A) within time is submitted before me in the form of affidavit and further it is brought to my notice that

Rajeev Chauhan, Gadiwan Mainpuri vs. ITO Ward 2(2)5 Mainpuri, Mainpuri

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

ITA 437/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A