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.

28 results for “condonation of delay”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai544Kolkata371Mumbai333Delhi312Hyderabad242Ahmedabad231Bangalore155Jaipur145Pune142Surat97Visakhapatnam79Chandigarh68Rajkot59Cochin58Indore54Patna52Lucknow52Raipur41Calcutta38Panaji33Nagpur32Amritsar28Agra24Cuttack17Guwahati14Allahabad12Jabalpur12Dehradun6Jodhpur6Varanasi5Ranchi1SC1Orissa1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Addition to Income28Section 14824Section 69A22Section 25019Condonation of Delay19Section 250(6)17Cash Deposit16Section 143(3)12Section 147

PUNNU SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 35/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 144oSection 250(6)Section 250oSection 69A

money, bullion, jewellery, or valuable article has escaped assessment or remains unexplained. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3. The appeal was filed with a delay of 71 days. The assessee filed a condonation

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 14412
Section 689
Reopening of Assessment7

SHRI JASPAL SINGH,MOGA vs. ITO WARD-3 , MOGA

ITA 210/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Ms. Kanchan Garg, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

unexplained money, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that it was an inadvertent mistake in submitting the capital account, which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer at page 2 of the order and which cannot be taken as the basis for making

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

SHRI GURDEV SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 30/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 250

delay for 1196 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated 20.06.2019 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

BHATIA MEDICOS,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-(3)1_, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 688/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. Anil Miglani, Adv
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 3 I.T.A. No. 688/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. That

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

BASHARAT SALEEM REHTOO,SRINAGAR vs. DCIT, ACIT CENT. CIRCLE , SRINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal taken by assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The CIT(A); erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 700000/- made by the AO u/s 69A on account of cash found/ seized during the requisition u/s 132A on 03.12.2018. The order passed

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 265/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various parties

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 264/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various parties

HINDVEE SMALL FINANCE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) JAMMU, JAMMU

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

ITA 215/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Moolchandani, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

condone the delay, and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 7. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of hire purchase financing of tourist vehicles and loans are advanced to small tour operators and taxi drivers, for purchase of vehicles, who are located mainly in the state of Jammu

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

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 NAVRAJ SINGH S/O SHRI. SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

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

ITA 89/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

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 SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 258/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 68

delay for 441 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 on basis of reasons recorded after getting approval from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant is an agriculturist and has been declaring agriculture I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2008-09 income consistently in the returns of income

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

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

SHRI ABDUL HAMID MIR,KUPWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 266/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A
Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 28Section 44ASection 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above facts, addition of Rs. 10,42,000/- made by the AO is confirmed and the ground of appeal is dismissed.” (Despite having provided to the Ld. CIT (A), all the material facts, merits end submissions in support of grounds of appeal supported by documentary evidences