← 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

Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward One Sangli

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

ITA 1739/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1739 To 1742/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sangli. At Post Navraswad Karnal, Karlal Dist Sangli, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Bkepp5877P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Umeshkumar M. Mali Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 16.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1739/Pun/2025 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit & Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have decided each & every ground raised by the assessee after

Santosh Shankar Gujar, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3), Pune, Akurdi

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

ITA 2038/PUN/2024[2013 - 2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1654 & 2038/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Santosh Shankar Gujar, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. H/No.246, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon- 411033. Pan : Alnpg9944K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Vibha D. Gulabani Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2024 & 29.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1654/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2014-15 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Mrs. Vibha D. GulabaniFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 54F

also not considered the submissions made by the assessee in this regard. For instance the issue of technical glitch was not considered as reasonable cause for not furnishing the return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee furnished last reply

Santosh Shankar Gujar, Near Vitthal Rukmini Mandir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3), Pune, Akurdi

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

ITA 1654/PUN/2024[2014 - 2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1654 & 2038/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Santosh Shankar Gujar, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. H/No.246, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon- 411033. Pan : Alnpg9944K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Vibha D. Gulabani Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2024 & 29.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1654/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2014-15 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Mrs. Vibha D. GulabaniFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 54F

also not considered the submissions made by the assessee in this regard. For instance the issue of technical glitch was not considered as reasonable cause for not furnishing the return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee furnished last reply