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.

32 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai589Delhi462Chennai315Kolkata299Ahmedabad298Jaipur250Bangalore196Pune196Surat154Hyderabad139Karnataka126Indore104Chandigarh97Cochin78Visakhapatnam66Lucknow59Nagpur55Rajkot53Cuttack48Calcutta43Patna34Amritsar32Agra29Guwahati27Raipur25Ranchi24Panaji17Allahabad15Jabalpur14SC11Dehradun7Jodhpur6Varanasi3Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1027Section 271(1)(b)27Penalty23Section 14721Condonation of Delay19Section 153A18Section 25017Section 271(1)(c)17Section 263

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

2. That appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act was required to be filed on or before. 02.06.2021 but is being sent through speed post on 20.08.2022 which is expected to be received in ITAT office on or before resulting in delay of 448 days. 3. That assessee is residing in a village Dhamian Khurd PO Sirhala Mundian Hoshiarpur

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

17
Section 143(3)14
Addition to Income12
Limitation/Time-bar9

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass , DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 168Section 263Section 271(1)

section 271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.306/ASR/2014 & 591/ASR/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Estate

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 591/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass , DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 168Section 263Section 271(1)

section 271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.306/ASR/2014 & 591/ASR/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Estate

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

ITA 75/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271

271 (1)c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without giving the reasonable opportunity to be heard to the assessee. 6. That it is prayed that the order of the Assessing

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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

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

M/S SHYMA LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICERII, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 592/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Jaswinder Singh (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan (D.R.)
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(2)Section 147

condonation of the delay in applying for the said registration, erstwhile vested with the competent authority w.e.f. 01.06.2007 (by insertion of the second proviso to section 12A(1)(a)). Clearly, therefore, there should be no other impediment - apart from non-registration, for the non allowance of the exemption u/s. 11 and, as a corollary, no change in the objects

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR vs. DR SHYAM LAL THAPAR NURSING HOME, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 586/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Jaswinder Singh (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan (D.R.)
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(2)Section 147

condonation of the delay in applying for the said registration, erstwhile vested with the competent authority w.e.f. 01.06.2007 (by insertion of the second proviso to section 12A(1)(a)). Clearly, therefore, there should be no other impediment - apart from non-registration, for the non allowance of the exemption u/s. 11 and, as a corollary, no change in the objects

M/S. SHYAM LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER_II,, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 644/ASR/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Jaswinder Singh (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan (D.R.)
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(2)Section 147

condonation of the delay in applying for the said registration, erstwhile vested with the competent authority w.e.f. 01.06.2007 (by insertion of the second proviso to section 12A(1)(a)). Clearly, therefore, there should be no other impediment - apart from non-registration, for the non allowance of the exemption u/s. 11 and, as a corollary, no change in the objects

M/S ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 137/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

2. In the outset we advert that ITA NO. 137/ASR/018 was related to the quantum appeal of the assessee. The ITA no. 99/ASR/2018 is related to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09. The appeal against the penalty was filed with delay of 149 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition before the bench. The delay

MESERS ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 99/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

2. In the outset we advert that ITA NO. 137/ASR/018 was related to the quantum appeal of the assessee. The ITA no. 99/ASR/2018 is related to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09. The appeal against the penalty was filed with delay of 149 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition before the bench. The delay

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 643/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 147Section 148

section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer has sent the questionnaire along with the statutory notice to the assessee fixing the date of hearing as 26.12.2012. As per the assessment order none appeared on the date of hearing that is on 26.12.2012. Another I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 2 notice was issued on 17 January 2013, however the said

SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

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

ITA 54/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

delay of 198 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the penalty order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala thereby levying penalty of Rs.5,09,784/- u/s 271 (1 )(c) as well as the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar, thereby confirming the penalty order passed

MESERS ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 552/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal