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.

22 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad229Mumbai196Chennai166Hyderabad162Delhi136Kolkata125Jaipur119Pune112Bangalore111Lucknow89Surat83Visakhapatnam76Patna66Rajkot64Indore49Chandigarh47Amritsar34Raipur27Agra22Jabalpur18Cochin16Nagpur16Allahabad12Cuttack11Guwahati10Dehradun9Jodhpur7Panaji7Ranchi4SC2Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69A30Section 14424Addition to Income19Section 14718Cash Deposit16Section 142(1)12Unexplained Money11Section 14810Demonetization10

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

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. 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 5. This second appeal

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Section 2509
Section 143(3)7
Condonation of Delay7

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

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. 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 5. This second appeal

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

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

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

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

section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on mere presumption, surmises and conjectures without rejecting the explanation and the books of accounts maintained during the regular course of business by the appellant.” 5. Perused the records and heard the ld. Representative for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 6. At the very outset, ld. Representative

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

section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and may kindly be admitted and oblige. 3. We have carefully considered the facts stated in the said application. Upon consideration, we are of the considered view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the said this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay of 74 days and admit

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

section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has deposited total cash of Rs.50.12 lakhs in the bank account during the year under consideration and from 01.04.2016 till 08.11.2016, total cash of Rs.34,22,200/- was deposited by the assessee in the bank account and during the period 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017, assessee has deposited cash

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

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

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 in the bank account

BHAGIRATH PAKHRIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 60/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 69A

condone the delay in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 5. We now adjudicate on the merits of the case wherein learned lower authorities have set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee for the reason of computing capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, but ended up making

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 from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The assessee

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

JAGDEESH PRASAD,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AAYKAR BHAWAN SANJAY PLACE

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

ITA 275/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 147Section 249(3)Section 69A

69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) noted that there was a delay in filing of the appeal by 43 days on the ground that in Form No.35 on the one hand, the assessee states that he received the assessment order

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 in the bank account during April

PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA,TIKAMGARH vs. ITO , TIKAMGARH

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

ITA 446/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Pramod Kumar Gupta, Vs. Ito, House No. 393, Tikamgarh Bhelasee Baldev Gargh, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Auupg5954D 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 144Section 147Section 194Section 69A

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before this Tribunal:- Pramod Kumar Gupta “Ground No.1: That the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 224,06,405/- as unexplained cash

WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI, M.P. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS CENTRE

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

ITA 33/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There was a delay of 400 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was not admitted. 4. Against the order

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

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR

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

ITA 372/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Site No. 1, City Centre Ward 3(2), Gwalior Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India Pan : Agspg9180F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80T

condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such 391 days delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in order to meet the overall justice, and admits the same as the Department has not raised any objection. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ITAT, raising following