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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata218Mumbai152Delhi122Chennai100Bangalore94Ahmedabad93Jaipur91Hyderabad60Surat43Pune35Chandigarh34Visakhapatnam30Rajkot27Lucknow26Patna23Raipur20Indore20Amritsar12Nagpur7Guwahati6Cuttack6SC6Allahabad5Agra4Cochin4Panaji4Ranchi2Varanasi2Dehradun2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 1445Section 142(1)5Section 271A4Section 133(6)4Section 1484Section 144B3Cash Deposit3Addition to Income3Section 2502Section 69A

GORA BAI SAHU ,ASHOK NAGAR vs. ITO ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

ITA 35/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Gora Bai Sahu, Income Tax Officer, Shri Ram Charan Sahu & Ashok Nagar, L/H Late Gora Bai, Sony Vs Madhya Pradesh-473331 Colony, Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh-473331 Pan-Fdzps8877N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case:- This case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act vide noticed dated 28.03.2019 on the basis of AIR information of purchasing immovable property having value more than Rs. 30,00,000/-. The legal heir of the assessee Shri Ramcharan Lal Sahu filed the return

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

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

2
Business Income2
Unexplained Money2
ITA 89/AGR/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Upadhyay, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(1)

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in treating the assessment order framed by the Learned Ajit Singh Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as non-est in the facts and circumstances

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