← 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

Iit Patna, Patna vs. Dc/Ac Exemption Cir Patna, Patna Bihar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.337/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Iit, Patna……………………………………………………………....Appellant Admin Block Bihta, Patna-801106. [Pan: Aaaai2401A] Vs. Dc/Ac, Exemption, Circle-Patna.……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhary, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 25, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.05.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi [The ‘Cit(A)’] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Iit Patna, Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Relied Upon Information Available Regarding: Cash Deposits: ₹10593857/- Term Deposits: ₹62,69,99,990/- Contract Receipt: ₹8,51,325/- Interest U/S 194A Of The Act : ₹31,59,501/-

Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 272A(2)(e)

mistake, and relief was granted by Ld. CIT (A) deleting the penalty. Therefore, the present penalty should also be deleted on the ground of reasonable cause. 5. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the AO and CIT(A)’s view, arguing that non-filing of return is a violation ... loss of revenue. In AY 2015–16, a penalty in similar circumstances was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which establishes a precedent for reasonable cause. In view of the above, the penalty levied under section 272A(2)(e) be sustained. Considering the factual matrix, the prior relief granted

Kali Durai, Kaiveli vs. ITO, Villupuram

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

ITA 2357/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2357/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Kali Durai, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ravi Illam, No. 3, Mgr Street, Ward I, Villupuram. Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Kaiveli, Chennai 600 042. [Pan:Ccwpd7680C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Sonali Khatod, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 87 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Ms. Sonali Khatod, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 144

considering the submissions of the ld. AR, the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal, are found to be reasonable cause. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits after considering the submissions/ evidences

St. Francis Xavier Church, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thane

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

ITA 5883/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Smt. B. Brahma Vidya
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

CsIT/CsIT while entertaining such applications for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A/10/10B/10BB, shall satisfy themselves that the applicant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such Forms before the expiry of the time allowed and the case is of genuine hardship on merits. 10. We therefore, find that ... complied with but at the same time, where there is delay in complying with the timelines, one needs to see whether there is reasonable cause for such delay and where there is substantial compliance in terms of conduct of the audit, issuance of audit report and the contents