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.

74 results for “condonation of delay”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai675Delhi508Chennai487Pune396Ahmedabad393Jaipur338Kolkata292Hyderabad254Bangalore231Surat206Indore171Chandigarh170Raipur145Rajkot133Nagpur132Lucknow128Cochin125Visakhapatnam105Cuttack95Amritsar74Patna72Agra57Guwahati40Ranchi30SC30Panaji26Dehradun24Jabalpur23Jodhpur19Allahabad15Varanasi5VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Penalty55Condonation of Delay55Section 25051Addition to Income36Section 271(1)(b)32Section 271B31Section 143(3)29Section 44A28Section 147

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

condonation of delay with the support of affidavit of the appellant assesse, as under: “1. That applicant has filed appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act dated 28.03.2021 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar received by assessee on 01.04.2021. 2. That appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act was required to be filed

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

27
Section 14823
Section 271(1)(c)23
Natural Justice17

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 4/ASR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay is dismissed." 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also.” 7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessment order is already disposed of and rejected. So, there

SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOE TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 2/ASR/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay is dismissed." 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also.” 7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessment order is already disposed of and rejected. So, there

SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 3/ASR/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay is dismissed." 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also.” 7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessment order is already disposed of and rejected. So, there

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 1/ASR/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay is dismissed." 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also.” 7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessment order is already disposed of and rejected. So, there

SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 5/ASR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay is dismissed." 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also.” 7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessment order is already disposed of and rejected. So, there

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 6/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay is dismissed." 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also.” 7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessment order is already disposed of and rejected. So, there

SUMAN CHHABRA,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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

ITA 191/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 191/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 147Section 250Section 270A

penalty imposed by the AO Ward 1(1), Jammu passed u/s 270A of the Act, vide order dated 25.08.2022. 2. Condonation of delay

SHRI JASWANT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 218/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay, ought to have adjudicated the issues of law and facts raised in its appeal by the assessee. 5. That ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in impliedly confirming the addition pf Rs.33,59,502/- as made by the Id.AO by way of an ex-parte order. 6. That the order under appeal is wholly against law, perverse

SHRI JASWANT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 217/ASR/2023[2010-011]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Aug 2023AY 2010-011

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay, ought to have adjudicated the issues of law and facts raised in its appeal by the assessee. 5. That ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in impliedly confirming the addition pf Rs.33,59,502/- as made by the Id.AO by way of an ex-parte order. 6. That the order under appeal is wholly against law, perverse

SHRI JASWANT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 219/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay, ought to have adjudicated the issues of law and facts raised in its appeal by the assessee. 5. That ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in impliedly confirming the addition pf Rs.33,59,502/- as made by the Id.AO by way of an ex-parte order. 6. That the order under appeal is wholly against law, perverse

SHRI JASWANT SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 4 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 220/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay, ought to have adjudicated the issues of law and facts raised in its appeal by the assessee. 5. That ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in impliedly confirming the addition pf Rs.33,59,502/- as made by the Id.AO by way of an ex-parte order. 6. That the order under appeal is wholly against law, perverse

AMARJOT SINGH,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 597/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed @ Rs. 10,000/-, for each default. 33. The matter in first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority u/s 249(2) of the Act, refusing to condone the delay

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 101/ASR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed @ Rs. 10,000/-, for each default. 33. The matter in first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority u/s 249(2) of the Act, refusing to condone the delay

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 102/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed @ Rs. 10,000/-, for each default. 33. The matter in first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority u/s 249(2) of the Act, refusing to condone the delay

AMARJOT SINGH,VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 598/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed @ Rs. 10,000/-, for each default. 33. The matter in first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority u/s 249(2) of the Act, refusing to condone the delay

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR G T ROAD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 103/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed @ Rs. 10,000/-, for each default. 33. The matter in first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority u/s 249(2) of the Act, refusing to condone the delay

SHRI GHULAM NABI DAND ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

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

ITA 88/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay of 180 Days, and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion appeal is rendered as inadmissible.” 7. Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal on various grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal and one of the main grievance of the assessee is that he has not been

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 289/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 147Section 250(6)

Penalty matter u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act 61; 13. This appeal is time barred by eighteen days. Consideration the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 290/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 147Section 250(6)

Penalty matter u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act 61; 13. This appeal is time barred by eighteen days. Consideration the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay