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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 53(1)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai603Mumbai472Delhi459Kolkata265Bangalore207Ahmedabad169Karnataka142Hyderabad130Jaipur124Chandigarh108Pune103Nagpur66Indore57Visakhapatnam56Surat53Amritsar51Cuttack46Rajkot41Lucknow40Calcutta39Raipur38Patna20Cochin17SC16Guwahati14Telangana11Varanasi9Allahabad9Agra6Jodhpur5Dehradun5Rajasthan5Jabalpur4Orissa3Ranchi2Panaji1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)9Section 1448Section 2506Section 143(1)6Section 36(1)(va)5Addition to Income4Condonation of Delay4Section 1473Section 69A

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

3
Section 2713
Cash Deposit3
Penalty3

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

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

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 53/ALLD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

53 & 54/ALLD/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, CIT(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. PAN:ACBPH7430G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R PER SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 52/ALLD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

53 & 54/ALLD/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, CIT(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. PAN:ACBPH7430G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R PER SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIR.-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 54/ALLD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

53 & 54/ALLD/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, CIT(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. PAN:ACBPH7430G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R PER SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals

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

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

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.12,92,040/- and made the addition of Rs.10,53,000/- under section 69A of the Act. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order

ROHIT,FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, AMBEDKAR NAGAR

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

ITA 102/ALLD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.102/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 250

delay may please be condoned and the appeal may be admitted to be heard on merits. 2.4 Considering the condonation application, and the contents of the affidavit we find that the assessee has stated sufficient cause for filing the appeal belated by 692 days and we find that in absence of any willful or intentional neglect on the part

HARISH CHANDAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1) ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/ALLD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 253(3)

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. 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 for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the I.T.A. No.26/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 2 delay was unintentional and beyond