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.

13 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 77clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai346Mumbai292Delhi225Kolkata219Bangalore162Pune162Hyderabad154Ahmedabad145Karnataka127Jaipur103Chandigarh69Visakhapatnam58Indore43Surat41Calcutta39Cuttack28Lucknow27Cochin24Patna21Raipur21Nagpur20Kerala17Guwahati17SC15Rajkot14Amritsar13Telangana10Panaji8Agra5Jodhpur5Jabalpur4Allahabad4Orissa3Varanasi2Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1020Condonation of Delay10Section 2507Section 12A7Section 143(3)5Section 69A5Addition to Income5Exemption5Deduction

THE BHANOKI CO-OP.AGRI.MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LTD, ,PHAGWARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ATX , PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 588/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 The Bhanoki Co-Op, Agri, Vs Dcit, Phagwara Multipurpose Society Ltd., Vpo Bhanoki, Phagwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat0546N Assessee By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M.S. Parmar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Y.K. Sud, ARFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Parmar, DR
Section 80

condon the delay and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 177069/- made by the AO u/s80-P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That CIT(A) while sustaining the disallowing failed to appreciate that the provisions of section

SH.PANCHASM,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

5
Section 1474
Section 1484
Section 271(1)(c)4

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 642/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat On Or Before 10.10.2018, The Same Were Filed Only On 26.12.2018, Thus Resulting In 77 Days Delay In Filing Of Appeals, As Also Pointed Out By The Registry. 2. Precise Reasons, Which Occasioned The Above Unintended Delay, Are Brought Out Here Below, To Enable The Hon'Ble Bench To Take A Benevolent View In The Matter: A) That The Appellant Is An Innocent Young Boy Of About Twenty Seven Years. Unaware Of The Intricate Tax Laws He Remained Dependent On His Local Counsel For All His Income Tax Matters. However, Having Failed To See Success In Assessment As Also In First Appeals, He Was No More Keen To Continue With Said Counsel & Looked For Someone Else To Pursue His Appeals Before The Tribunal At Amritsar.

For Appellant: Shri J.S. Bhasin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

77 days delay in filing of appeals, as also pointed out by the registry. 2. Precise reasons, which occasioned the above unintended delay, are brought out here below, to enable the Hon'ble Bench to take a benevolent view in the matter: a) That the appellant is an innocent young boy of about twenty seven years. Unaware of the intricate

SH. PANCHAM MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 640/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat On Or Before 10.10.2018, The Same Were Filed Only On 26.12.2018, Thus Resulting In 77 Days Delay In Filing Of Appeals, As Also Pointed Out By The Registry. 2. Precise Reasons, Which Occasioned The Above Unintended Delay, Are Brought Out Here Below, To Enable The Hon'Ble Bench To Take A Benevolent View In The Matter: A) That The Appellant Is An Innocent Young Boy Of About Twenty Seven Years. Unaware Of The Intricate Tax Laws He Remained Dependent On His Local Counsel For All His Income Tax Matters. However, Having Failed To See Success In Assessment As Also In First Appeals, He Was No More Keen To Continue With Said Counsel & Looked For Someone Else To Pursue His Appeals Before The Tribunal At Amritsar.

For Appellant: Shri J.S. Bhasin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

77 days delay in filing of appeals, as also pointed out by the registry. 2. Precise reasons, which occasioned the above unintended delay, are brought out here below, to enable the Hon'ble Bench to take a benevolent view in the matter: a) That the appellant is an innocent young boy of about twenty seven years. Unaware of the intricate

SHRI SANJU GUPTA ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAMMU

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

ITA 488/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal contained in form 36 are as follows: “1. That the Assessment Order dated 14/02/2022 passed by the Assessing Officer. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income 3 I.T.A. No.488/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tax Act, 1961 and the order

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

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

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 60/ASR/2017[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)

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

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)

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 553/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

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

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

SMT..ANURADHA,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), PATHANKOT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 437/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: “1. That on the facts & in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer & dismissing the appeal. 2. That

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), ABOHAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ABOHAR vs. RAJ KUMAR, ABOHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 622/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. Grounds of appeal taken by the revenue in Form No. 36 are as follows (which is not concise in terms of Rule – 8 of ITAT Rules ’63): “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

LATE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 250(6)Section 69

delay in filing appeal may please be condoned and appeal be admitted for the cause of justice.” 3 I.T.A. No. 50/Asr/2020 Late Sh. Joginder Singh v. ITO 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that based on an AIR information in case of the appellant, the AO stated that the appellant has made a cash deposit of Rs. 77

SHRI GULZAR AHMAD DAR ,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 530/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 44A

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case: The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of trading of construction material (iron, cement & other related items) as wholesaler & retailer during the financial year 2015-16. In this case, the AO had information that the assessee had deposited cash

IMPROVEMENT TRUST FAZILKA,FAZILKA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 122/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Girish Bali, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)

section 12AA(1) of the Act. As such, order passed is illegal and void. The same be cancelled. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of.” 3. The short delay of 77 days in filing appeal on account of National lockdown is condoned