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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai275Hyderabad142Bangalore94Kolkata85Mumbai85Delhi82Ahmedabad67Patna59Jaipur57Pune54Visakhapatnam51Lucknow51Surat34Chandigarh33Panaji31Rajkot29Amritsar29Indore26Agra23Raipur19Cuttack16Allahabad10Nagpur10Cochin7Jodhpur6Jabalpur4Dehradun2Ranchi1Calcutta1Varanasi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 14414Section 69A14Section 2509Addition to Income9Cash Deposit7Demonetization7Condonation of Delay7Section 142(1)6Section 143(2)

ITAILI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,FATEHPUR vs. ITO-2(4), FATEHPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 58/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 270Section 44A

condoned. 3. We have duly considered the matter. We observe that while there is a considerable delay in the filing of the appeal, there is no apparent benefit to the assessee in not filing the appeal and no apparent judicial pronouncement subsequently pronounced on the grounds under dispute, that would allow us to infer that the assessee filed the appeal

3
Section 1472
Section 253(3)2
Section 250(6)2

RAHUL SHARMA,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 98/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.98/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: “1. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without giving adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. 2. BECAUSE the notices

HUSHN JAHAN,AMETHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AMETHI, AMETHI

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

ITA 68/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Hushn Jahan V. The Income Tax Officer Palpur Raebareli Road Amethi Jagdishpur, Musfirkhana Amethi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Autpj9095P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

demonetization as unexplained money u/s 69A; (11) Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the addition under section 69A ignoring the fact that the provisions of section 69A cannot be applied where no books of accounts were maintained; (12) order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice; 3.0 In this case, the Department

GAJENDRA KUMAR,MAHOBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (2)(4 ), BANDA

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

ITA 94/ALLD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 526, Rathaur Colony, Jaitpur, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Belatal, Mahoba, U.P. Pan:Bitpk6827P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Dated 21.12.2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Because All Notices Were Issued U/S 250 Of The Act On Itba Portal & No Physical Notice Was Issued To Appellant On Address Mentioned In Filed Itr & Filed Appeal & Has Disallowed Appeal Without Considering This Fact That Appellant Lives At Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) & Is Unknown About Information Technology. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Without Considering This Fact That Appeal Was Filed By Advocate Dinesh Gupta Who Was Expired & Email Id In Profile Of Appellant Was Update By Him. Appellant Was Unknown About Login Id & Password Of Portal & Email Id Which Was Maintained By Late Advocate Dinesh Gupta.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 221(1)Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period and only notice U/s 142(1) was issued to appellant. Further, the A.O. has completed assessment without issuing notice U/s 143(2) of the Act. 4. THAT the learned A.O. has erred in law & a fact in making addition of Rs. 25, 90,414/- without considering this fact that appellant has filed his return of income with

CHHEDI LAL GUPTA,PRATAPGARH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PRATAPGARH

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

ITA 144/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 253(3)Section 69A

demonetization period is liable to be assessed as part of turnover of the brick line business of the appellant and therefore separate addition under section 69A of Rs.10,63,000/- is liable to be deleted.” 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application

SHRI KISHAN GUPTA,KANNAUJ vs. ITO WARD 4(2)(3), KANNUAJ, KANNAUJ

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

ITA 167/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

demonetization period, had made cash deposit of Rs.10,53,000/- but has not filed ITR for the year under consideration in response to notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment in the case of the assessee u/s 144 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.12

ISRAIL,CHITRAKOOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANDA

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

ITA 30/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 69A

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information gathered during the phase of online verification, the Department gathered

MAA SHARDA COLD STORAGE,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD- 2(5), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.04/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

condone the delay of 32 days and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: 1. BECAUSE the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. 2. BECAUSE

RAJESH KUMAR,MIRZAPUR vs. NFAC,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 143/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Nfac, Delhi Tarkapur, Mirzapur-231001 Pan:Aoopk0542B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961 Passed On 7.03.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made On Income Of Rs.1,53,13,406/ U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Is Highly Unjustified. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceeding U/S 147 Was Initiated Is Not Correct As There Was No Proper Satisfaction Nor Information With The Assessing Officer That Assessee Has Escaped Assessment Hence The Entire Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter Addition Of Rs. 1,53, 13,406/- (1,36,16,605/- + 16,96,801/-) As Added Us/ 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act By Alleging Unexplained Money By The Assessing As Per Para 8 Of The Assessment Order Is Highly Unjustified. 4. That In Any View Of The Matter The Assessing Officer Was Wrong In Adding Only Credit Entries In Bank Account Without Considering The Debit Entries When The Law Is Settled That Document Should Be Considered As Whole & Not A Piece- Meal Hence The Addition Made Is Highly Unjustified.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

condonation petition that the reason for the delay was on account of the fact that the assessee was seriously ill for a long time with acute breathlessness and other problems and was undergoing treatment at Medanta Hospital, Delhi due to which he could not contact his counsel. It was only after he recovered, that he got the appeal prepared

SANKAR LAL JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 80/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The facts of the case are that the Department received an information that during the demonetization