← All Phrases

“bona fide mistake”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A204 judgments

GOPALKRISHNA NARLA RAO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6488/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgopalkrishna Narla Rao, Income Tax Officer, A/12/46 Sunder Nagar Kalina, Ward 16(2)(4), Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400098 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpr 1916R Appellant By : Shri M Subramnian Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2026

For Appellant: Shri M SubramnianFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee rectified immediately after it came to his knowledge in course of assessment proceeding. Thus, he submitted before us that being a bona fide mistake, penalty should be deleted. In this context, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: - 1. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2180/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

sufficiency of cause." Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh ((2010) 6 SCC 786), which held that delay due to ignorance or bona fide mistake must be condoned in the interest of justice. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. ((2011) 334 ITR 269 (Cal)), where it was observed

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2179/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member | ITA No: 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 | | Assessment Year: 2015-16 | | Baraiya Galaji Kalaji 93 Arjun Vas, Nana Chiloda, B.O. Ahmedabad Gandhinagar-382330 Gujarat, India PAN: BEMPB9663R (Appellant) | Vs | The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar Gandhingar (Respondent) | Assessee Represented: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 03-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

sufficiency of cause." Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh ((2010) 6 SCC 786), which held that delay due to ignorance or bona fide mistake must be condoned in the interest of justice. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. ((2011) 334 ITR 269 (Cal)), where it was observed

SHIPIJ RATHORE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 557/IND/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

filed this appeal on\nfollowing grounds:\n“1. The filing of the DTAA relief form in the incorrect assessment year\nis a bona fide mistake, and it is within the jurisdiction of the Income\nTax Department to allow rectification of this error, given that the\ntaxpayer did not intentionally cause

SHREE MARUTI SEVA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2345/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT DR
Section 119Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

7/2024 dated 25.04.2024. 5. The assessee submitted before CIT(Exemptions) that the delay by filing an affidavit stating that there was a bona fide mistake and misinterpretation of the due date, as the trustees believed that the time limit was co-terminus with the validity of provisional approval. However ... taken a consistent view that procedural delays in filing applications for approval under section 80G, particularly in cases involving newly constituted trusts and bona fide mistakes, deserve a liberal approach. In N J Charitable Foundation vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) [2024] 161 taxmann.com 21 (Surat-Trib.), the Tribunal held

ANKIT JAIN, HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1545/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

Revenue cannot be made remediless and the object and purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. It is true that due to a bona fide mistake and in view of subsequent extension of time vide various notifications, the Revenue issued the impugned notices under section 148 after the amendment

ANKIT JAIN,HYDERABAD. vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1544/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

Revenue cannot be made remediless and the object and purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. It is true that due to a bona fide mistake and in view of subsequent extension of time vide various notifications, the Revenue issued the impugned notices under section 148 after the amendment

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1322/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 37(1)

Revenue cannot be made remediless and the object and purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. It is true that due to a bona fide mistake and in view of subsequent extension of time vide various notifications, the Revenue issued the impugned notices under section 148 after the amendment

GARRAH SKUS LIMITED,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, BANKURA

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

ITA 2361/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 226(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

part of the counsel of the ITA No.: 2361/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Garrah SKUS Limited. assessee and was because of bona fide mistake. The assessee therefore, has requested that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merits. After perusing the same, we are satisfied

SHRI RAJASTHANI JAIN SHWETAMBAR SANGH (POORVA VIBHAG),PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

ITA 2411/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2411/Pun/2025

For Appellant: Shri Shubham RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

ITAT and not before the CIT(A). 5. I say that upon this realisation, Mr. Sarda immediately informed the Trust of his bona fide mistake and initiated necessary corrective action to file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT without any further delay. Accordingly, the present appeal is being filed

MAHATHI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 802/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1518/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 57

bona\nfides.\n129. Delay by itself is not inherently indicative of negligence. In\ncertain cases, unavoidable circumstances such as illness, fraud,\nmiscommunication, or bona fide mistake may stretch over long\nperiods, yet remain excusable if they are explained with candour\nand supported by material. Conversely, an unexplained delay of\neven

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

ITA 1685/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

dated 11/12/2017. The Ld. AR submitted that as the claim for deduction under section 54 of the Act was backed by a bona fide mistake, that was immediately corrected by the assessee when the said fact was brought to his notice by the PCIT in the course of the proceedings ... find on a perusal of the record that the assessee in the present case before us, had on account of bona fide mistake raised the claim for deduction under section 54F insofar the same pertained to the STCG arising on the transfer of 517.87 sq yds of land, which mistake

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1592/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 147Section 148

Revenue cannot be made remediless and the object and purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. It is true that due to a bona fide mistake and in view of subsequent extension of time vide various notifications, the Revenue issued the impugned notices under section 148 after the amendment

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1591/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 147Section 148

Revenue cannot be made remediless and the object and purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. It is true that due to a bona fide mistake and in view of subsequent extension of time vide various notifications, the Revenue issued the impugned notices under section 148 after the amendment

NEW SURYA PUBLIC SCHOOL,DELHI vs. DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD 31(4) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5082/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

without allowing expenses. The Ld. Co-ordinate bench has held that the Income Tax Authorities are ‘not supposed to punish assessees for their bona fide mistake’ and set aside the orders of the lower authorities, and restored the matter to the AO to tax the assessee at the correct rate

SAWANSUKHA FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1632/KOL/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2025-26 Sawansukha Foundation……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 6, Camac Street, Circus Avenue S.G., Kol-700017.. [Pan: Abbts2486E] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab For Final Approval As Per The Provisions Of Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 12ASection 50GSection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

assessee before the ld. CIT(E) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the Form 10AB for AY 2025-26 as bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee trust and consider the application for registration u/s 80G as within time. The ld. CIT(E) will consider

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1316/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

bona fides. 129. Delay by itself is not inherently indicative of negligence. In certain cases, unavoidable circumstances such as illness, fraud, miscommunication, or bona fide mistake may stretch over long periods, yet remain excusable if they are explained with candour and supported by material. Conversely, an unexplained delay of even

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1315/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

bona fides. 129. Delay by itself is not inherently indicative of negligence. In certain cases, unavoidable circumstances such as illness, fraud, miscommunication, or bona fide mistake may stretch over long periods, yet remain excusable if they are explained with candour and supported by material. Conversely, an unexplained delay of even

HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAUPADA, TEEN HAATH NAKA, THANE (W)

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6357/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

demonstrate bona fide intent.  Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 253 ITR 798 (SC): Delay condoned where caused by bona fide mistake or negligence of counsel, holding that parties should not suffer for faults of advisors.  Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh ... proven if bona fide cause exists.  Dy. CIT v. SRK Construction Projects (ITAT Hyderabad): Delay of 445 days condoned on grounds of bona fide mistake. 1.3 The CIT(A)'s reliance on Lava International Ltd. v. CBDT (2024) (Del HC) is misplaced, as that case involved no extraordinary circumstances, whereas

Showing 1–20 of 204 · Page 1 of 11

...