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.

15 results for “condonation of delay”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai522Kolkata456Delhi383Mumbai281Jaipur209Ahmedabad198Hyderabad151Bangalore136Surat103Visakhapatnam89Chandigarh78Pune77Amritsar67Rajkot61Karnataka51Nagpur47Cuttack47Indore46Calcutta45Lucknow38Cochin37Patna29Raipur29Agra15Guwahati13Ranchi12Allahabad10Varanasi9Telangana8Jodhpur8Dehradun7Panaji5SC4Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 14718Section 69A13Addition to Income13Cash Deposit12Section 14411Section 2509Section 1489Section 250(6)7Natural Justice

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

DEEPENDRA KUMAR,ETAH vs. ITO,WARD-4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

7
Section 142(1)6
Undisclosed Income6
Condonation of Delay5
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

SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

undisclosed interest income by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals) has also confirmed consequential penalty of Rs.2,73,490/- imposed by the Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Perused the records and heard the ld. Authorized Representative

SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 90/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

undisclosed interest income by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals) has also confirmed consequential penalty of Rs.2,73,490/- imposed by the Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Perused the records and heard the ld. Authorized Representative

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)

undisclosed income of the appellant without considering the facts of the case and legal position the law. 5- BECAUSE in any view the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in presuming that no return of income was filed for the year under consideration without considering the facts of the case and legal position the law. 6- BECAUSE in any view

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

undisclosed income of the appellant. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts and in law adding a sum of Rs. 13,90,000 under section 69A of the LT. Act, 1961 without appreciating the source of cash deposited in the bank account of the appellant

SADHANA GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO, WARD4(2),4, MAINPURI

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

ITA 133/AGR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment years [AY] 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeals for non- prosecution, confirming the following additions made by the learned ITA No. 132, 133 & 134/Agr/2025 Assessing Officer vide assessment orders dated

SADHANA GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO, WARD4(2),4, MAINPURI

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

ITA 134/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment years [AY] 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeals for non- prosecution, confirming the following additions made by the learned ITA No. 132, 133 & 134/Agr/2025 Assessing Officer vide assessment orders dated

SADHANA GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO, WARD4(2),4, MAINPURI

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

ITA 132/AGR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment years [AY] 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeals for non- prosecution, confirming the following additions made by the learned ITA No. 132, 133 & 134/Agr/2025 Assessing Officer vide assessment orders dated

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 period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in the F.Y 2016-17 relevant

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

JOHAR PRASAD,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-14

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

income in compliance thereto. Statutory notice dated 27.12.2021 u/s. 142(1) and a reminder letter dated 20.01.2022 were issued. In response, the appellant/assessee submitted his reply on ITBA portal on 28.01.2022, wherein he requested the Assessing Officer to supply the requisite sanction to be sought from the competent authority u/s. 151 of the Act before issuing the notice

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

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SRI DEVI SINGH ,MATHURA vs. ITO- 1(3)(4), MATHURA, MATHURA

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

ITA 62/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

delay is liable to condone in the light of such order. The copy of the order is enclosed herewith. So, it is requested to you kindly accept the appeal as regular accordingly and fixed the case for hearing, thanks.” 3.1. The explanation of the assessee has been considered and in view of the above Hon’ble Supreme Court order

SUKHVEER SINGH DHILOW,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69A

undisclosed sources u/s. 69A of the Act, vide assessment order dated 13.11.2018 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Besides, the Assessing Officer also added a sum of Rs.52061/- to the income of the assessee, being interest received in the said bank account. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the additions