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.

19 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 127clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai136Karnataka123Delhi113Chennai93Kolkata66Jaipur63Chandigarh58Bangalore57Hyderabad49Calcutta41Ahmedabad41Lucknow26Pune22Visakhapatnam19Amritsar19Cochin18Surat18Raipur16Indore15Rajkot15Nagpur9Guwahati6Agra5Ranchi5SC5Telangana5Cuttack4Kerala4Jodhpur3Patna3Dehradun3Allahabad3Jabalpur2Varanasi2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1Rajasthan1Panaji1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay15Addition to Income12Section 2509Section 2828Section 69A7Section 1446Section 1486Section 1476Cash Deposit

HEMOPHILLA SOCIETY OF KASHMIR,SRINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal against the rejection for registration u/s 80G(5), is also

ITA 209/ASR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C. A
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be decided on merits. 3. Grounds of appeal taken by the assesseee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. The Ld. CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act in an arbitrary manner. 2. The Ld. CIT (E) has erred in not giving

BHAGAT PARKASH KAMAL SHARMA,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (1), JAMMU

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

6
Section 250(6)5
Section 2635
Exemption4
ITA 184/ASR/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Amritsar
07 Feb 2023
AY 2013-14

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

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 250Section 68

127(2) of the Act dated 01.10.2019 and the current jurisdiction is fixed in ITO Ward-1(1), Jammu. Accordingly, the appeal order was passed by the NFAC. So, the appeal is under jurisdiction of ITAT, Amritsar Bench. I.T.A. No.184/Asr/2021 3 Assessment Year: 2013-14 4. Brief fact of the case is that the ld. AR informed that the appeal

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)

section 282 of the act 61 (r.w.r. 127 of I T Rules 62). 12. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 290/ASR / 2024 for Asst Year: 2013-14 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)

section 282 of the act 61 (r.w.r. 127 of I T Rules 62). 12. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 290/ASR / 2024 for Asst Year: 2013-14 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

SHARAN FOUNDATION,MOGA, PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 254/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar13 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Adv., &
Section 282Section 80Section 80G(5)(iii)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. Whether order passed by ld. CIT(E) in Form No. 10AD is liable to be set aside on Principle of Natural Justice? 2. Whether mere uploading of notice

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

condone and the ld. CIT(A) may please be directed to admit the appeal for hearing on merits. In support of his contention, the assessee has placed reliance on a number of judicial decisions in the case of “Esha Bhattacharya” in Civil Appeal No. 8183-8184 of 2013 (SC), the Hon’ble Tribunal Amritsar in the case of Gurfateh Filsm

IRFAN SHAH,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 381/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Kundan Pandey for Sh. Vipul Arora C.A
Section 115BSection 144Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) has, in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.3240500 on account of cash deposited during demonetization

SHOWKAT SHAFI, S.O. MOHAMMAD YATOO, YATOO MANZIL NAGAM CHADOORA BUDGAM,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), SRINAGAR

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

ITA 284/ASR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Kushal Chopra, C. A
Section 144Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order ex-parte and has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer without giving any decisions on the merits

HUMAIRA IFTIKHAR,JAWAHAR NAGAR SRINGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

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

ITA 667/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tanveer Altaf Qadri, C.A
Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

condone the delay in absence of any intentional neglect on the part of the assessee and we admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: 3 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO “1. The Ld. A.O. has treated the cash deposits to the tune

SHRI BHUSAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (1) , JALANDHAR

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

ITA 298/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 282Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The worthy Income Tax Officer erred in completing the assessment by making an addition u/s 69A of Rs.993500/- against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 I.T.A. No. 298/Asr/2024 Bhushan Kumar

AL- ANSAR CHARITABLE TRUST ,SRI NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 149/ASR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ishtiyaq Ahmad, C.A
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

condone the delay in filing this appeal and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 6. The ground (no. 2) contained in the memorandum of appeal filed by the assessee relates to non receipt of any notices from the office of the ld. CIT(E) and the ld. AR, in course of hearing, submitted that no reasonable opportunity

M/S. NATRANG REGD ,JAMMU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 404/ASR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal contained in Form 36 are as follows: “1. That the Ld. CIT(E) Chandigarh erred in passing the order Under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions and presumptions, without affording the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee

MR. CHARAT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

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

ITA 577/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

delay being not intentional on the part of the assesse the same is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits. 3. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of repeated calls. No application for adjournments has been filed. However, since it is an exparte order, we proceed to take up the hearing

PANKAJ AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED ,G.T ROAD, MOGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR

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

ITA 238/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. So, the additions of Rs. 80,00,000.00 made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and must be deleted. 7 (v) The assessee craves leave to argue on any other question of law and/or facts at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Condonation of delay: It is pointed

SURJIT SINGH PARMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 303/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

condonation of delay of only 59 days in filing his appeal and also prays for a proper opportunity of hearing to explain his case along with supporting documents including books of accounts, audited financials, vis a vis the tax audit report in form 3CB and 3CD already on record, and in terms of Government notification no 2653 dated 08/11/2016, which

SHRI AJAZ AHMAD KUCHAI,SRI NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

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

ITA 668/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sunfat Ashraf Wani, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 250Section 282Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as under: “1. The Ld C.I.T (A) passed ex arte order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. The lid C.LT (A) erred in law as well as in facts

DARSHAN SINGH,MOGA vs. ITO WARD I MOGA, MOGA

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

ITA 86/ASR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: None
Section 147Section 250Section 282

condone the delay in filing of the appeal by 771 (seven hundred seventy one) days. There has not been any representation in the court neither by the assessee nor by the ld. AR, even though notices of hearing have been issued through e-mail id as stated in Form No. 36. 3. We find from the records that there

SHRI OM PARKASH BAJAJ,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

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

ITA 216/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)
Section 144Section 148Section 156Section 249(3)Section 250

127(2)(b) and that leaves no doubt about its actual service, and it is also not pointed out to which address the penalty notice has been received. 9. We have heard the Ld. DR and considered the materials on record. We are of the opinion that before rejection of the appeal under section

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BRAR,KOTKAPURA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

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

ITA 72/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263oSection 54

delay of 334 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Pr. CIT, Bathinda erred in revising the assessment order Dated 14.12.2018 passed by the AO, Ward 3(3), Faridkot which was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue