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.

41 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 127(2)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai136Karnataka123Delhi113Chennai93Kolkata66Jaipur64Chandigarh58Bangalore57Hyderabad45Calcutta41Ahmedabad41Lucknow26Pune22Visakhapatnam19Amritsar19Cochin18Surat18Raipur16Indore15Rajkot15Nagpur9Guwahati6Agra5Ranchi5SC5Telangana5Cuttack4Kerala4Jodhpur3Patna3Dehradun3Allahabad3Jabalpur2Varanasi2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1Rajasthan1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14847Section 26328Addition to Income22Section 14720Condonation of Delay19Section 12A(1)(ac)18Section 12A16Section 143(3)15Exemption

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR HIRALAL VORA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 153/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 254

condone the delay of 1442 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 10. The assessee in the 1st and additional ground of appeal has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Asstt. Year 2012-13 7 11. The facts in brief in the present

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 6813
Section 14411
Disallowance11

TEJAS KARSHANBHAI DARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1459/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 147

section 154 was served upon him at the old address. That communication had also consumed time. Therefore, the assessee could not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There was no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in filing the appeal was the result of ill health coupled with the change of his address thrice in a short

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

2) of Rule 127 states the following: “The addresses referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be- (a) for communications delivered or transmitted in the manner provided in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section(1) of section 282 (i) the address available in the PAN database of the addressee; or (ii) the address available in the income

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1034/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

2) of Rule 127 states the following: “The addresses referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be- (a) for communications delivered or transmitted in the manner provided in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section(1) of section 282 (i) the address available in the PAN database of the addressee; or (ii) the address available in the income

RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 140/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16 and ITA Nos.140/Ahd/2020 are filed by the assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the I.T.(SS)A No. 54/Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2015-16 Page No 2 Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav

RAJNIKANTH S BHALAVAT,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Final Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

127 taxmann.com 188 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) held that where assessee was under bona fide impression that its appeal had been filed by accountant, but came to know fact of not having filed appeal when there was pressure from department for payment of demand, delay of 492 days in I.T.A No. 495/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 3 Rajnikanth S. Bhalavat

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt.Year 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company has filed its return of income on 28.11.2015 declaring total income at Rs.9,08,58,880/-. The assessee-company at the relevant time was engaged in manufacturing and trading of soft drink concentrate/mixes and bakery

PEPPERAZZI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 448/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Final Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chajad, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 253Section 5

section 253 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It must be I.T.A No. 448/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 4 Pepperazzi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea

PACHCHIS GAM PATIDAR JEEVAN SAHAY TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2047/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2025

Bench: Itat. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons For The Delay & We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 127 Days In Filing The Above Appeal.

Section 12ASection 80G

section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). I.T.A No. 2047/Ahd/2024 Page No 2 Pachchis Gam Patidar Jeevan Sahay Trust vs. CIT(E) 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed a Notarized Affidavit, that the Trustees of the Trust

MAHARSHI YAGYAVALKYA GYANPEETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result the delay in filing both the appeals is condoned; the impugned orders passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad are hereby set aside; Both matters are restored to the file of the CIT(Ex...

ITA 2103/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 3. Brief Facts of the Case 3. The assessee, a registered trust, had filed applications in Form No. 10AB for (i) regular registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and (ii) approval under section 80G(5)(iii). The assessee was earlier granted provisional registration under section

MAHARSHI YAGYAVALKYA GYANPEETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result the delay in filing both the appeals is condoned; the impugned orders passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad are hereby set aside; Both matters are restored to the file of the CIT(Ex...

ITA 2102/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 3. Brief Facts of the Case 3. The assessee, a registered trust, had filed applications in Form No. 10AB for (i) regular registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and (ii) approval under section 80G(5)(iii). The assessee was earlier granted provisional registration under section

SHIA JAFARI MASHAYAKHI MOMIN JAMAT MASJID,PATAN vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 729/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarsr.

For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)

delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing on behalf of the assessees contended that although notices were issued by the CIT(E), the same could not be effectively responded to due to administrative constraints and failure on the part

SHIA JAFARI MASHAYAKHI MOMIN JAMAT META,BANASKANTHA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 728/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarsr.

For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)

delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing on behalf of the assessees contended that although notices were issued by the CIT(E), the same could not be effectively responded to due to administrative constraints and failure on the part

SHIA JAFARI MASHAYAKHI MOMINNI JAMAT,PATAN vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 726/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarsr.

For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)

delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing on behalf of the assessees contended that although notices were issued by the CIT(E), the same could not be effectively responded to due to administrative constraints and failure on the part

SHIA JAFARI MASHAYAKHI MOMIN JAMAT IMAMVADA,PATAN vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarsr.

For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)

delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing on behalf of the assessees contended that although notices were issued by the CIT(E), the same could not be effectively responded to due to administrative constraints and failure on the part

JAN SAHYOG VIKAS TRUST,BANASKANTHA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1017/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026

Bench: us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. Learned CIT(E) erred in law and facts by making the order by rejecting the application filed in form 10AB for registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the IT act for not producing documents required by the authority.

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. There was delay of 127 days in filing this appeal. The assessee had filed a condonation

VAISHALI BABUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 380/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 380/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Vaishali Babubhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner B-201, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Gala Gardenia Apartments, Ahmedabad. Nr. Safal Parisar, South Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Abdpp0233G

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act erred in holding the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 10/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 13/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 12/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee