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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad229Mumbai196Chennai166Hyderabad162Delhi136Kolkata126Jaipur119Pune112Bangalore111Lucknow89Surat86Visakhapatnam77Patna66Rajkot64Indore50Chandigarh47Amritsar35Raipur28Agra22Jabalpur18Cochin18Nagpur16Guwahati13Allahabad12Cuttack11Dehradun9Jodhpur7Panaji7Ranchi4Varanasi4SC2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69A19Section 14418Addition to Income12Cash Deposit9Section 2508Section 1478Condonation of Delay8Section 142(1)7Demonetization

JIYAUDDIN KHAN,MAHARAJGANJ, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ, MAHARAJGANJ, UTTAR PRADESH

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

ITA 139/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Jiyauddin Khan V. Ito-1(4) Bhitauli Bazar, Maharjganj, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharajganj-273302. Maharajganj, Maharajganj-273301. Pan:Bafpk3621P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 69A

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits. 3. In this case, assessment order dated 16.03.2023 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed

7
Section 143(3)5
Unexplained Money4
Section 143(2)3

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

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 had moved an application for adjournment. However, during the course of hearing, on a query from the Bench, the ld. D.R. submitted that he wants to withdraw

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

Section 69A can only be invoked where books of accounts were maintained. 5. THAT the appellant craves for adding or deleting any ground of appeal.” 2. At the very outset, it is observed that the appeal is delayed by 78 days. The petition has been filed by the assessee for condonation

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

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

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 dated 04/08/2025, duly supported by an affidavit, for condonation of delay

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 period, the assessee had deposited a cash amounting to Rs.14,02,000/- in the assessee’s bank account at Bank of Baroda, Koraon, Allahabad, but no ITR had been filed by the assessee

RAMENDRA SINGH,KANNAUJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(3), KANNAUJ

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

ITA 53/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Bahadurpur Ward 4(2)(3) Majhigawan Kannauj Kannauj (U.P) Tan/Pan:Gzqps7971P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shvetank Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That Huge Amounts Have Been Credited To The Assessee’S Bank Account No.001311002103008 Maintained With Farrukhabad District Central Co-Operative Bank, Saurikh, Kannauj By Way Of Cash & Credit Entries. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Said Notice Was

For Appellant: Shri Shvetank Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80T

69A, But the amount of Rs.15,29,500/" was the receipt from Sales of Agricultural Land, and NEFT/TRF Credit highway land acquisition amount of compensation self-joint bank a/c of Rs.22,20,000/-, & interest credited in saving a/c Rs.92,199/- which Amount of Net income, was below tax limit. 2. Section 144 (Addition of credit entries as per bank statement

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

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

section 69A of the Act. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 26/09/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the learned CIT(A) on the ground

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

SHYAM BABU KESARWANI,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), KAUSHAMBI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/ALLD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shyam Babu Kesarwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tilhapur Mor, Kaushambi Ward-2(5), Kaushambi Pan:Bgepk4506N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 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 Passed On 22.12.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By Order Dated 31.10.2019 On Income Of Rs.28,27,870/- Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceeding As Initiated U/S 147 Is Not Valid Proceeding In The Eyes Of Law Since No Material Was Brought On Record That Assessee Has Concealed Any Income & The Issue Again Taken Up In The Reassessment Proceeding Which Was Already Before The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Original Assessment & After Due Application Of Mind The Then Assessing Officer Passed Speaking Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Hence Simply On Change Of Opinion The Reassessment Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated Are Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs.25,25,415/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Ex-Parte Order On Account Of Excess Deposit In Bank Considered As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Is Highly Unjustified & His Action As Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

delay is condoned and the grounds are admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that the ld. AO observed that despite the fact of scrutiny assessment having been done in the case of the assessee under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.03.2015, subsequent to the same, it had been noticed that the total deposits