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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 124(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai125Karnataka122Chennai120Delhi97Bangalore91Ahmedabad90Pune72Kolkata58Hyderabad47Calcutta42Chandigarh30Raipur26Jaipur23Indore17Rajkot15Lucknow14Ranchi14Surat12Cuttack11Visakhapatnam10Nagpur7Guwahati6SC6Amritsar5Jodhpur3Telangana3Varanasi3Cochin2Jabalpur2Patna2Agra1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 1487Section 1474Section 250(6)3Section 1443Reassessment3Reopening of Assessment3Section 12A(1)(ac)2Section 682Section 148(1)

MESERS KASHMIR ROAD LINES,JAMMU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

ITA 547/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Itat, Amritsar & Handed Over The Appeal Papers To His Assistant For Deposit Of Appeal Fee & Sending The Same To Amritsar After Getting Signed From The Assessee, However It Was Later Found That The Assistant Of Him Failed To Deposit The Appeal Fee & Also Failed To File The Appeal In The Registry Of The Itat, Amritsar & Therefore Due To Such Circumstances, The Appeal Got Delayed In Filling Before The Itat, Amritsar, However The Same Was Filed Belatedly Through The Local Senior Counsel Sh. Padam Behal (Ld. Chartered Accountant) On Dated 12/07/2018 & Consequently Resulted Into Delay Of 124 Days In Filling Of The Appeal. The Assessee Also Felt Regret & Submitted That There Was Bonafide Reason For The Delay & The Same Was Unintentional.

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (Ld. C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. D.R.)
Section 250(6)Section 5

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

2
Section 1492
Limitation/Time-bar2
Condonation of Delay2

MERA PIND 360 FOUNDATION, JALANDHAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 955/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2026AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. R
Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

2. That I am working as a Director of Mera Pind 360 Foundation, Jalandhar, bearing PAN AAPCM5984K, since its inception and am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am competent and authorized to swear this affidavit on behalf of the Company. 3. That Mera Pind 360 Foundation is a Section & Company, duly incorporated under

ZOYIEB ALI,SRINAGAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 687/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer, Zoyieb Ali Ward-1 170 A, Green Park Lane Bye Pass, Near Jamkash, Srinagar Kapurthala Pan:Akapa2889F Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate & Assessee By Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Revenue By 23.09.2025. Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement /A // .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 124Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

condone the short delay 49 days and admit the appeal. 4. The Legal issue raised by the appellant by via of additional ground pertaining to validity of territorial jurisdiction has no merits as the appellant assessee was required to raise the objection of the territory adjudication within one month of the issue of notice as per provisions of section 124

LATE SMT. MOHINI PURI THROUGH,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 76/ASR/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 76/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149

delay being fully explained, was, accordingly, condoned, and the hearing in the matter proceed with. 3. The assessee has raised a legal plea on the ground that the notice u/s. 148 dated 31.3.2011 was in fact served only on 04.04.2011, i.e., beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant year. The same is therefore

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