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.

36 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 142(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai609Kolkata543Delhi492Chennai460Hyderabad371Ahmedabad319Jaipur294Bangalore268Pune264Visakhapatnam157Surat144Indore135Chandigarh127Karnataka105Lucknow97Rajkot94Patna89Amritsar76Cochin62Nagpur54Calcutta48Panaji40Raipur39Agra36Cuttack30Dehradun24Guwahati18Allahabad18Jabalpur15SC11Jodhpur11Varanasi10Telangana9Ranchi7Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan1Himachal Pradesh1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 14737Addition to Income31Section 14430Section 14829Section 142(1)23Section 143(2)19Cash Deposit19Section 69A17Condonation of Delay15

SARIF,JALESAR ETAH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1) , ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 464/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases, vide assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

Section 143(3)14
Section 25014
Penalty10

SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 463/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases, vide assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 113/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 114/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 115/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

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

section 271AAC(1) stated that appellate order was passed by learned 'CIT (Appeals)' on 11.01.2024. The 'appellant' thereafter checked with his counsel who looked into e-filing portal, confirming availability of said appellate order passed ex- parte and advised to prefer appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal. The 'appellant' is accordingly filing appeal within a period of 4 days of acquiring

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

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

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

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 aggregating to ₹14,35,000/- on various dates in his bank 2 | P a g e account No. 0370101027294 maintained with Canara

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

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal against the ex-party order passed under section under section 147 r.w.s

BRIJRAJ KUMAR PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

142(1), penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- imposed for receipt of payment in cash in contravention of section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1

BRIJRAJ KUMAR PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

142(1), penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- imposed for receipt of payment in cash in contravention of section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1

BRIJRAJ KUMAR PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

142(1), penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- imposed for receipt of payment in cash in contravention of section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1

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

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. I order accordingly. 5. On merits, ld. Counsel at the outset submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing 4 | P a g e Officer during

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)

condone the delay of 394 days in filing this appeal belatedly by the assessee with ITAT beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3), and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. Brief facts of the case are that after making enquiries on the basis of AIR/NMS, reasons for reopening of the concluded assessment were recorded

RAMKISHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

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

ITA 58/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48

section 147 of the Act. The information with the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had sold an immovable property to Sangwan Landco Pvt. Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs.89,20,000/-. In response to to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee in his reply dated 02.12.2022 stated that the immovable property sold was an agricultural

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO,WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 228/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

142(1) and show cause notice 2 | P a g e ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 were issued, which remained un-responded on behalf of the assessee. Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment proceedings and made and addition of Rs.60,85,071/- to the returned income of assessee, assessing total income at Rs.64,59,640/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR ,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 229/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

142(1) and show cause notice 2 | P a g e ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 were issued, which remained un-responded on behalf of the assessee. Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment proceedings and made and addition of Rs.60,85,071/- to the returned income of assessee, assessing total income at Rs.64,59,640/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal

KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA,ETAH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 401/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 158BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 68

condone the delay caused in filing this appeal before ITAT. 3. Brief facts state that the appellant assessee is engaged in the wholesale trading business of cement and filed his return of income on 15.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs.4,47,150/-. The assessee had declared gross profit at Rs.27,08,733/- and Net Profit of Rs.5

DINESH KUMAR,AGRA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 65/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 156

1), Agra. 2. This appeal has been filed with a delay of one year. In this regard, the assessee has filed a condonation application dated 01.02.2025 which is reproduced as under:- “Sub: Condonation of delay the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 08.02.2024. The said appeal was to be filed by 08.04.2024 but could not be filed

SH ABHISHEK GUPTA ,AGRA vs. ITO W2(2)(1),, FIROZABAD

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

ITA 172/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarshri Abhishek Gupta The Income Tax Officer 405, Anupam Omerean Ward 2(2)(1), Firozabad, Heights, Mughal Road, V. U.P. Kamla Nagar, Agra-282005 Uttar Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aefpg0755D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Written adj. application rejectedFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253(3)

1) )passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, P a g e | 2 Shri Abhishek Gupta NFAC, Delhi, which appeal before learned CIT(A) in turn has arisen from assessment order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961. 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised