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.

23 results for “condonation of delay”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai275Hyderabad142Bangalore94Kolkata85Mumbai82Delhi81Ahmedabad66Patna59Jaipur56Pune54Visakhapatnam51Lucknow51Surat34Chandigarh33Panaji31Amritsar29Rajkot28Indore25Agra23Raipur19Cuttack15Allahabad10Nagpur10Cochin7Jodhpur6Jabalpur4Dehradun2Ranchi1Calcutta1Varanasi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Demonetization23Section 69A19Cash Deposit19Addition to Income18Section 14416Section 271A12Section 26312Section 143(3)8Section 115B8

ADARSH SINGH KUSHWAH,GWALIOR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), GWALIOR , GWALIOR

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

ITA 289/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Adarsh Singh Kushwah, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tansen Nagar, Hazira, Gwalior, Tax, Circle-3(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Madhya Pradesh-474002 Vs City Centre, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh-474011 Pan-Ajvpk5450E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 69A

condone the delay of 74 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case:- This case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason ‘cash deposit during the demonetization

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

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

Unexplained Money8
Section 142(1)7
Business Income7
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

demonetization and the same was brought to tax by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69A of the Act. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposit to the tune of Rs.43,03,500/-, on which the Assessing Officer computed profit @ 8% and brought to tax the income of Rs.3,44,280/- in the hands

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

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 of Rs 11,38,000/- in Syndicate Bank bearing Account No. 88573070000170 during demonetization

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

demonetization period, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition u/s. 69A of the Act to the extent of cash deposit of Rs.28,14,500/-. Accordingly, assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Further, penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC of the Act were initiated and several notices were issued to the assessee. Since, there was no response from the assessee

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

demonetization period, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition u/s. 69A of the Act to the extent of cash deposit of Rs.28,14,500/-. Accordingly, assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Further, penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC of the Act were initiated and several notices were issued to the assessee. Since, there was no response from the assessee

HARNAM SINGH GURJAR,DATIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GWALIOR

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

ITA 292/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & And Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142Section 144Section 69A

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and enjoying the income from the agriculture because the same is an exempt income. The assessee has deposited Rs.13,01,000 in his bank account during the period of demonetization

ANSHUL JAIN,MAINPURI vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per direction given hereinabove

ITA 129/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalpr.Cit-1, Anshul Jain, Agra. C/O Sri Shyam Narayan Vs. Jain, Mohalla Kabir Ganj, Bhogoan, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh-205262. Pan-Aqgpj6059E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263

demonetization period out of cash available at Rs.1,08,000 with his wife. 6. That, under facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 26-11-2019 passed u/s 143(3) was not erroneous therefore, it was beyond the scope of section 263 of the Act. 7. That, under facts and circumstances of the case

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 during the year. He brought to my notice that the Assessing Officer has treated all the credits

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and e-filed of his return of income on 15.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,04,818/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 30/41, Chhipitola Ward-1 (1)(1), Agra Agra Pan :Aarpj3189L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal , Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 Order

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed his return of income on 15.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,46,660/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee as claimed, remained engaged as a scrap

RADHE RADHE INDIAN OIL,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), INCOME TAX OFFICE

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

ITA 207/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhe Radhe Indian Oil, Vs. Ito, 23-B, Friends Colony, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarfr4416N Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

condoning the delay in filing of appeal before it by 10 months and 16 days. We find that the assessee firm had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs 3,52,060/- and assessment stood completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31/12/2019 determining total income at Rs 2,38,44,130/- after making the following

MOHAMMAD KHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(2), ALIGARH

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

ITA 181/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Me. Considering The Reason Adduced In The Condonation Petition, I Am Inclined To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Devinder Pal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. I find both the assessment order as well as the appellate orders were passed exparte without the presence of the assessee. The addition made is on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization

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

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

YOGENDRA SINGH,FATEHGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

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

ITA 524/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshyogendra Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nekpur Kalan Fatehgarh, Ward-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad, Up Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eqrps5224K Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

condone the delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. Yogendra Singh 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld NFAC was justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Rs 9,97,000/- on account of unexplained credits in the bank account

RAHUL JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO WARD-1, MORENA, MORENA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 420/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

condone the delay caused in filing both these appeals before the Tribunal. 2 | P a g e ITA No. 420 & 421/Agr/2025 ITA No. 420/Agr/2025: 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on the information gathered by department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited

RAHUL JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO WARD-1, MORENA, MORENA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 421/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

condone the delay caused in filing both these appeals before the Tribunal. 2 | P a g e ITA No. 420 & 421/Agr/2025 ITA No. 420/Agr/2025: 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on the information gathered by department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited

KOTHIWAL ICE AND COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 309/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.309/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kothiwal Ice & Cold Storage P. Ltd. Ito बनाम/ Sadabad Road, Jalesar Etah Vs. Up 207302 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-1353-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

delay of 13 days which stand condoned. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee and accordingly, the appeal was heard with the able assistance of Ld. Sr. DR. The assessee runs a cold storage and it earned rentals from farmers in cash. 2. Proceedings before lower authorities 2.1 During Assessment proceedings it transpired that assessee deposited cash

SHELENDRA YADAV,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(2) FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 513/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.513/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Shelendra Yadav Ito Ward 2(2)(2) बनाम/ 15, Pratappur, Nr. Primary School Firozabad Vs. Dikhtauli, Shikohabad – 283 135 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adopy-5414-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

delay of 325 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. The case was subjected to scrutiny assessment on the ground that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.36.24 Lacs during demonetization