BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

86 results for “condonation of delay”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai987Mumbai613Delhi525Ahmedabad430Kolkata407Hyderabad403Pune375Bangalore347Jaipur236Chandigarh216Amritsar179Surat170Indore149Visakhapatnam148Cochin144Patna132Lucknow130Rajkot121Raipur111Agra86Cuttack72Nagpur72Panaji62Calcutta37Allahabad32Jabalpur31Guwahati25Karnataka23Jodhpur23Varanasi20Dehradun10Ranchi6SC5Telangana3

Key Topics

Cash Deposit77Addition to Income73Section 14471Section 14747Section 14842Section 69A41Natural Justice32Section 143(3)23Section 25022

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),AGRA, SANJAY PLACE vs. SURENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM, SADABAD

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 163/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts state that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of fertilizer in the name and style of Shriram Fertilizers and filed original return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 06.11.2017, declaring total income of Rs.9,14,150/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, accepting the returned income

Showing 1–20 of 86 · Page 1 of 5

Demonetization22
Section 142(1)21
Section 143(2)20

JAGVIR SINGH KUNTAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2), MATHURA

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

ITA 68/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 253(3)Section 69A

cash deposit does not belong to any of the bank accounts maintained by the assessee, but due to lack of evidence, learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal with the Tribunal and the ld. Counsel at the outset submitted that this appeal is delayed by three days and the assessee

SULEMAN KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHANSI

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

ITA 361/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 69A

delay is condoned. 3. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. According to the information (Multi Year NMS) available with the department, assessee was found to have made huge cash deposits

SAROJ,MAINPURI vs. I.T.O WARD 2(5), MAINPURI

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

ITA 218/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

condone the delay of 82 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3), and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits. We order accordingly. 8. On merits of the issue, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was cash deposit

SARMAN RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

cash deposited in the bank account of the appellant out of the sales credited to the Audited Profit & Loss Account for the impugned year recorded in the books of account maintained by the appellant. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts and in law in making addition under

SATYAPRAKASH,AGRA vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 334/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

delay caused in filing the appeal does not appear intentional or deliberate, hence, condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee has not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is a farmer and his sole earning is from agriculture produce or from sale/purchase of rural agriculture land

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,GWALIOR vs. ITO 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 409/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Raghvendra Singh, Vs. Ito, Lohgarh, Bhitarwar Ward-1(1), Road, Dabra, Gwalior, Gwalior Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Berpr1313H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs 5,63,204/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits

CHANDRA PRAKASH GOPLANI,BENGALURU vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

ITA 166/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)

cash deposited in Bank Account, considering it as unexplained income, 2 | P a g e is grossly arbitrary, wrong, unjust, illegal and against the law and facts of the case. 9- BECAUSE the appellant craves leave to add or alter, any or more ground or grounds of Appeal, at the time of hearing of Appeal.” 3. At the outset, learned

DEEPAK KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O SHRI LATE RATAN LAL AGRAWAL,TIKAMGARH vs. ITO, TIKAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 445/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Deepak Kumar Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward No. 12, Purani Tikamgarh Tehsil, New Housing Board, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Axapa3069L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs 15,25,500/- on Deepak Kumar Agrawal account of cash deposits

DEEPENDRA KUMAR,ETAH vs. ITO,WARD-4(3)(1), ETAH

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

ITA 331/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

delay of about 944 days caused in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that based on the information available with the department, it was noticed that the appellant assessee had deposited cash

RAKHI AGARWAL,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/AGR/2024[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Rakhi Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Krishna Bhawan Opp, Gwalior Morena Wala Halwai, Daulat Ganj Lashkar, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aeapa9383A Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld NFAC was justified in confirming the addition made in some of ₹13,84,500/- as unexplained money in the facts and circumstances of the instant case

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 237/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 68

condonation of delay before us. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such 15 days delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and admits the same for adjudication as the Department has not raised any objection. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is a Co-operative Marketing Society registered under Madhya Co-operative

SH RANJEET KUMAR SHARMA ,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

ITA 62/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 69A

deposit the demand, the fact of passing of appellate order was come to the notice of the assessee and immediately appeal was filed. In support of these contentions, assessee also filed an affidavit and requested that the delay is not intentional and, therefore, the same may be please be condoned and appeal may be adjudicated on merits. 3. Per contra

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SRI DEVI SINGH ,MATHURA vs. ITO- 1(3)(4), MATHURA, MATHURA

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

ITA 62/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

delay is liable to condone in the light of such order. The copy of the order is enclosed herewith. So, it is requested to you kindly accept the appeal as regular accordingly and fixed the case for hearing, thanks.” 3.1. The explanation of the assessee has been considered and in view of the above Hon’ble Supreme Court order

RAJESH TYAGI,AMBAH vs. ITO WARD 1, MORENA, MORENA

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

ITA 618/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

condoning the delay. Without prejudice to the above 5. BECAUSE the proceedings under section 147 have neither been validly initiated nor concluded in accordance with the provisions of law and the assessment order passed in pursuance thereof is liable to be declared void-ab- initio. 6. BECAUSE in the absence of valid service of notice under section 148, the reassessment

RAHUL GUPTA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 287/AGR/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Rahul Gupta, Ito, Ward-2(1)(1), H. No.11A, Kala Kunj Maruti Aayakar Bhawan, Estate, Agra, Vs Sanjay Place, Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282007 Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Bskpk2217E Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 250

condone the delay of 407 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case:- The Assessing Officer had information that the assessee had deposited cash

RAHUL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

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

ITA 2/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271A

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case: The assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer had information that the assessee has deposited cash

LATE SHRI JAI PRAKASH RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

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

ITA 349/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69

delay, not being conscious or deliberate one, is hereby condoned. 3. At the time of hearing, learned AR of the assessee brought to my notice that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of cash deposit

PRASHANT GUPTA L/H OF LATE SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,FARRUKHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(2), FARRUKHABAD

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

ITA 59/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Prashant Gupta Vs. Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Ward-4(2)(2), Surendra Kumar Farrukhabad Gupta, Bajariya Brandavan, Kamganj, Farrukhabad, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcwpg7301M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are challenging the validity of the appellate order passed by the Learned CIT(A) in the name of Prashant Gupta deceased person. I find that assessee Late Surendra Kumar Gupta had expired

BRAJENDRA VIKRAM SINGH ,JALAUN vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(5), ORAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 120/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Brajendra Vikram Singh Ward-2(1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. Pan-Ciops6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 6

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee to decide the same on merits. Shri Brajendra Vikram Singh vs. PCIT 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for impugned year on 26.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.79,510/-. The assessee also filed the revised return