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.

24 results for “condonation of delay”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai544Kolkata371Mumbai333Delhi312Hyderabad242Ahmedabad231Bangalore155Jaipur145Pune142Surat97Visakhapatnam79Chandigarh68Rajkot59Cochin58Indore54Patna52Lucknow52Raipur41Calcutta38Panaji33Nagpur32Amritsar28Agra24Cuttack17Guwahati14Allahabad12Jabalpur12Dehradun6Jodhpur6Varanasi5Ranchi1SC1Orissa1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 14423Section 69A23Addition to Income21Unexplained Money18Section 14717Section 14814Cash Deposit14Section 142(1)10Natural Justice9

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

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

Section 2508
Demonetization8
Section 271(1)7

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

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

unexplained money an added the same in the income of The appellant Ld. AO passed order against the appellant. Ld. AO could not be disclosed material facts during the course of assessment proceeding Ld. AO could not give proper opportunity during the course of assessment proceeding.” 7.1. Therefore, even though it appears that the assessee neither filed any condonation application

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)

money had been deposited in bank account could not be basis for initiating proceedings u/sec 148, as deposits in bank account need not necessarily be out of income. The proceedings so initiated were illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4- BECAUSE in any view the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in treating the cash deposited as undisclosed income

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

Unexplained money on a/c of cash 1,04,76,914 1,41,48,286 1,47,35,213 deposits/credits in bank account u/s. 69A Undisclosed short term capital 8,46,000 4,60,000 - gains on sale of immovable property 2. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the assessee has filed these appeals on the ground, in addition to many other

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

Unexplained money on a/c of cash 1,04,76,914 1,41,48,286 1,47,35,213 deposits/credits in bank account u/s. 69A Undisclosed short term capital 8,46,000 4,60,000 - gains on sale of immovable property 2. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the assessee has filed these appeals on the ground, in addition to many other

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

Unexplained money on a/c of cash 1,04,76,914 1,41,48,286 1,47,35,213 deposits/credits in bank account u/s. 69A Undisclosed short term capital 8,46,000 4,60,000 - gains on sale of immovable property 2. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the assessee has filed these appeals on the ground, in addition to many other

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

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

AJAB SINGH,MORENA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 MORENA, MORENA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 479/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

condonation of delay. 2. Perused records and heard learned representative of the assessee and learned departmental representative. 3. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal before the first appellate authority on 19.09.2024 against the assessment order dated 14.03.2023 by a delay of about 492 days. The reason cited for the delay in filing

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further observed that since the assessee was not coming for hearing, it means that he has nothing to say in this regard. He, accordingly, added a sum of Rs.1,24,75,984/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal

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

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

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

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case: In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 144/147 of the Act on 18.11.2019 by making addition of Rs.15,13,500/- on account of cash deposit in his bank account maintained with Vijaya Bank, Agran Cantt. Agra. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee

RAKHI AGARWAL,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/AGR/2024[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Rakhi Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Krishna Bhawan Opp, Gwalior Morena Wala Halwai, Daulat Ganj Lashkar, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aeapa9383A Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld NFAC was justified in confirming the addition made in some of ₹13,84,500/- as unexplained money

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

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

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