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.

43 results for “condonation of delay”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai932Mumbai814Delhi736Kolkata464Pune429Ahmedabad392Bangalore244Jaipur195Hyderabad181Surat159Karnataka123Chandigarh114Visakhapatnam96Indore90Rajkot87Raipur77Nagpur71Patna67Lucknow66Cuttack57Agra57Calcutta50Amritsar43Guwahati26Cochin21Jodhpur18Panaji15Dehradun14Varanasi12Jabalpur11Ranchi6SC6Telangana5Allahabad5Orissa3Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 14884Section 14751Section 25037Addition to Income36Condonation of Delay26Cash Deposit25Reopening of Assessment23Section 143(3)21Section 250(6)

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 184/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 26314
Section 14412
Section 69A12

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 183/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 182/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

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

delay in filing appeal is condoned and appeal admitted on merits. 4. The Ld. PCIT observed that the assessment has been finalized by the Assessing Officer, without carrying out the necessary verification regarding source of cash deposited in the Bank account. Accordingly, in view of provisions contained in clause (a) of Explanation 2 below sub section (1) of section

AMANDIP SIINGH,HOUSE NO. NEAR NEHAR PATTI vs. ITO WARD 1, TARN TARAN, ITO WARD , TARN TARAN SARHALI ROAD

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

ITA 414/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 221(1)Section 250

Assessment Year 2013-14 This is to bring to your honor's kind notice the following facts for consideration with a request to condone the delay in the filing of appeal against the order of CIT(A):- 1. That order u/s 250 was passed by the Id.CIT(A) vide his order dated 20.11.2023 DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058084002

SHRI AVTAR SINGH ,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I, KAPURTHALA

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

ITA 454/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

condoned the delay of 339 days, thereafter the hearing was adjourned. Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal is against the reopening of assessment

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 6/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54F

Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. The assessee filed the appeal with delay of 683 days. The assessee filed condonation petition and explained the delay. The cause of delay is related to medical emergency and also covered by the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suo Motu WP (C) No.3 of 2020 dated 23/03/2020

MOHMMAD. MUZAFFAR. BEIGH,,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), SRINAGAR

In the result, the grounds No

ITA 99/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 292B

Assessment Year: 2008-09 was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5),Baramulla, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act date of order 29.03.2016. 2. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 101 days wherein, the ld. Sr. DR has not made any strong objection for condonation

LAKHVIR SINGH 810, VPO MALLAH TEHSIL JAGRAON DISTRICT LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA, PUNJAB

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

ITA 541/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

delay was condoned. 4. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,54,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. 5. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in reopening

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 444/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Touseef Ahmad Khanday &For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

delay of 8 days in filing the appeal has been 3 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO condoned on oral request mad by the Ld. AR at the time of hearing and appeal admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Briefly the facts as per record are that the AO received STR information from Chief Manager J&K Bank Ltd., Pampore which

RAVINDER SINGH BRAR,FARIDKOT, PUNJAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDKOT

In the result, we set aside the appeal back to the files of the Assessing Officer for a limited

ITA 373/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Assessment Year: 2012-13 3. The ld. DR has no objection. 4. Considering the medical issues of the assessee, we find that there is no intentional neglect or willful default part of the assessee and as such, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

SUNITA TULI,PATHANKOT vs. ITO WARD-1, PATHANKOT, PATHANKOT

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

ITA 603/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Assessment Year: 2015-16 appeal within the stipulated time and we consider the default is neither willful nor intentional , and as such, we condone the delay of 94 days and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

HITESH SINGLA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 663/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

reopening u/s 148 is liable to be cancelled as the issuance of notice is illegal, invalid and void abinitio. Since no notice was served on the assessee, as such the proceedings initiated are bad in the eyes of law and the assessment order is liable to be cancelled. 4. Thai the CIT(A) did not appreciate that the assessee should

SHRI SUBASH CHANDEER SAGGI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (30, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 159/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69

delay was condoned. In factual back drop the three appeals are in the same issue I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 3 and Cross objection was filed by the assessee against the ITA No.313/Asr/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10. At the outset, considering the common factual position of all the cases, here the ITA 313/Asr/2017 and C.O. 03/Asr/2019

SHRI SUBASH CHANDER SAGGI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6 (3), PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 160/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69

delay was condoned. In factual back drop the three appeals are in the same issue I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 3 and Cross objection was filed by the assessee against the ITA No.313/Asr/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10. At the outset, considering the common factual position of all the cases, here the ITA 313/Asr/2017 and C.O. 03/Asr/2019

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PATHANKOT vs. SHRI SUBHASH CHANDER SAGGI, LAJPAT NAGAR-2 NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 313/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69

delay was condoned. In factual back drop the three appeals are in the same issue I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 3 and Cross objection was filed by the assessee against the ITA No.313/Asr/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10. At the outset, considering the common factual position of all the cases, here the ITA 313/Asr/2017 and C.O. 03/Asr/2019

RANJANA DEVI,MAUR MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

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

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

condoned and the appeal admitted for hearing on merits. Substantial justice is more important than the procedural delay. 3. At the outset, during the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Bench. 4. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That order passed u/s 250 of the Income

NARCHOOR COMPANY ANANTNAG ( FORMER PARTNER -ABDUL HAMEED NARCHOOR) RAYEES AHMAD KOUL ,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

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

ITA 300/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A
Section 144Section 250

Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 411 (four hundred eleven) days. The assessee has filed an application explaining the reasons for delay where he submitted that the order of the ld. first appellate authority passed on 28.12.2023 was actually served

SHRI SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee ITA No

ITA 91/ASR/2022[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

delay of 740 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, all the appeals are under the same factual backdrop and have a common issue. All the appeals are taken together, heard together, and disposed of together. ITA No. 90/Asr/2022is taken as lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. That the Id CIT(A) misdirected herself

SHRI SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee ITA No

ITA 90/ASR/2022[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

delay of 740 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, all the appeals are under the same factual backdrop and have a common issue. All the appeals are taken together, heard together, and disposed of together. ITA No. 90/Asr/2022is taken as lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. That the Id CIT(A) misdirected herself