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.

77 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 143(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,190Chennai1,571Delhi1,505Kolkata1,382Bangalore732Pune606Ahmedabad586Hyderabad528Jaipur412Indore295Chandigarh286Surat246Lucknow198Visakhapatnam180Rajkot178Cochin177Karnataka170Raipur150Patna138Nagpur128Amritsar119Panaji90Calcutta82Agra77Cuttack70Jodhpur35Dehradun34Guwahati31Allahabad26Jabalpur25SC15Telangana13Varanasi12Ranchi11Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh4Orissa3Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)55Addition to Income51Section 143(3)43Section 15431Section 14830Section 14728Condonation of Delay27Section 25024Section 143(2)22

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 146/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to\ndecide the appeal of the assessee on merits.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm.\nThe return of income for the year under appeal was filed declaring\ntotal income at ‘Nil' and assessee has declared net agricultural\nincome of Rs.49,50,000/- which

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

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

Section 1122
Exemption18
Cash Deposit15
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

143(3) of the Act, assessing total income at Rs.9,46,720/-. Subsequently, as per information available with the department, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.1,31,58,116/- from one Shri Kallu Kureshi and there were various credit transactions in different bank accounts of the assessee totaling to Rs.13

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

143(3) of the Act, assessing total income at Rs.9,46,720/-. Subsequently, as per information available with the department, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.1,31,58,116/- from one Shri Kallu Kureshi and there were various credit transactions in different bank accounts of the assessee totaling to Rs.13

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, 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 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

AARUSH JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 170/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In the instant case, learned CIT(A) was not satisfied to condone the said delay in filing the first appeals on 04.11.2023 against the intimations u/s. 143

AARUSH JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 169/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In the instant case, learned CIT(A) was not satisfied to condone the said delay in filing the first appeals on 04.11.2023 against the intimations u/s. 143

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

143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), dated 29.11.2019 for Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Income Tax Officer, Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh. 2. There is a delay of 9 months and 19 days in filing of the present appeal before us. In this regard, a condonation petition has been filed

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.\n2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second\nappeal on 12.03.2025 against the impugned order passed on 15.05.2024.\nThe reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are that\nthe e-main Id mentioned in Form No. 35 was of assessee's earlier counsel,\nwho

MAYA SHIKSHAN PASHISHAN SANSTHAN,HATHRAS vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250

143(1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal in limine, being beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s. 249(2) of the Act. 4. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, with others on merit, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred

RADHIKA GARG,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292B

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. I find that the assessee vide ground number 5 had raised a preliminary ground stating that the statutory notice under section 143

SMT MEERA DEVI,AURAIYA vs. ITO1(1)(4), ETAWAH

ITA 4/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

143(3) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's representative did not appear, and the cases were proceeded ex-parte. A significant delay in filing the appeals was condoned

MAHARAJA AGRASEN SEWA SADAN,SELECT CITY vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), AYAKAR BAHWAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 63/AGR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Maharaja Agrasen Sewa Vs. Ito (Exemption) Sadan, Mughal Road, Kamla Ayakar Bhawan Nagar, Agra Uttar Pradesh 282005 Pan No. Aaatm6506F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income- Tax Act 1961[hereinafter referred as ‘the Act. 2. An adjournment application moved on behalf of the assessee to adjourn the case, no ground to adjourn the case hence, the application is rejected. The bench decided to proceed to decide the issue with the assistance of ld. D.R. 3. The assessee has raised following

LATE SHRI DAMODAR SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR KRISHNAPAL,AGRA vs. PRABHAKAR, AGRA

Appeal is dismissed as premature at\nthis stage in above terms, subject to all just exceptions

ITA 120/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 159Section 2(11)Section 2(29)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147\nof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act').\nITA No.120/Agr/2024\n2.\nCase called twice. None appears at the appellant's behest. It\nis accordingly proceeded ex-parte.\n3. The delay of 3 days in filing the assessee's instant appeal\nstands condoned

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

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,KONCH, JALAUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 71/AGR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay in the filing of the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for AYs 2016-17 and 2018-19. 3. Brief facts of the case: The assessee Ebenezer Shiksha Prasar Samiti is an educational institution and is a registered Co-operative Society. The assessee filed its original return of income for the respective assessment years

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,1, NEW PATEL NAGAR, KONCH, JALAUN, KONCH S.O (JALAUN) vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 69/AGR/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay in the filing of the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for AYs 2016-17 and 2018-19. 3. Brief facts of the case: The assessee Ebenezer Shiksha Prasar Samiti is an educational institution and is a registered Co-operative Society. The assessee filed its original return of income for the respective assessment years

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,KONCH, JALAUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 70/AGR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay in the filing of the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for AYs 2016-17 and 2018-19. 3. Brief facts of the case: The assessee Ebenezer Shiksha Prasar Samiti is an educational institution and is a registered Co-operative Society. The assessee filed its original return of income for the respective assessment years

AASTITVA JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 88/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 164(1)Section 234Section 249(2)

condonation application considering reason of delay as not bonafide. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not providing appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant for explaining the reason for delay in filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal which is against of law and principle of natural