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.

63 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai356Mumbai333Delhi295Kolkata239Ahmedabad214Pune164Jaipur148Hyderabad135Bangalore126Surat83Visakhapatnam71Amritsar63Chandigarh51Indore50Raipur42Patna38Cuttack35Nagpur34Lucknow31Cochin30Rajkot27Agra16Guwahati14Allahabad7Varanasi6Telangana5Jabalpur4Dehradun3Himachal Pradesh2Karnataka2Orissa2Panaji2Jodhpur2SC1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 14476Section 14854Addition to Income54Section 250(6)38Section 14737Natural Justice35Depreciation34Disallowance34Section 250

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

condoning the delay and registered the society with retrospective effect. The photocopy of order u/s 12AA has already been filed with our earlier letters. In the Finance Act, 2014, the section 12A of The Income Tax Act has been amended with effect from 01.10.2014 and inserted the following clauses: "Provided that where registration has been granted to the trust

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

20
Section 26319
Reassessment14
Condonation of Delay14

GURMAIL DASS SIDDHAR (DECEASED) THRU LH NIRANJAN KAUR(WIDOW),HOSHIARPUR vs. ITO W-1 , HOSHIARPUR

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

ITA 352/ASR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 352/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gurmail Dass Siddhar Vs. Ito, Ward- 1, (Deceased) Through L/H Smt. Hoshiarpur. Niranjan Kaur, Widow Garshankar, Ward No. 2 Near Banga Road Octroi, Garshankar, Hoshiarpur. [Pan:-Bwzps4561C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None (Adjournment Application) Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

147 of the Act, 61. 2 Condonation of Delay: It is pointed out by the Registry that the appeal is barred by 668 (Six Hundred Sixty Eight) days. The appeal has been filed with an application for condonation of delay stating the fact that the appellant is a widow (senior citizen) of 72 years and has been a resident

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 39/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 40/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

KHURSHID AHMAD DAR,JAMMU AND KASHMIR, INDIA vs. ITO WARD, UDHAMPUR, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Blekhurshid Ahmad Dar Vs. Ito, Ward, Nully Poshwari Turkawangam, Udhampur Shopia, 192305, Jammu & Kashmir, India.Pin 192305. Pan No. Awmpd5664K Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp. Revenue By Mrs. Roshanta Kumari Meena, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025. Date Of Pronouncement To. [1 .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

condone the delay of 171 days and admit the appeal on merits. 4 4. The assessee has raised additional legal grounds which were also raised in main grounds. One of the legal issue raised by the assessee is that the assessment framed under section 147 is bad in law as the notice under section 148 was issued on 13.04.2021 without

HITESH SINGLA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 663/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

147 of the Act, after necessary approval from higher authorities, vide notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021. Even though, there has not been any compliance on the part of the assessee in course of reassessment proceedings, necessary information has been obtained by the AO (copies of bank statements) u/s 133(6), from Punjab & Sindh Bank, Bathinda (A/c No. xxxxxx1040), State Bank

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)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 289& 290/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Condonation of delay:- The appeal is belated by 18 days. The assessee filed 2. application for condonation of delay, stating that the CIT (A) order dated 27/02/2024, was supposed to have been filed by 27/04/2024, but the same has been

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)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 289& 290/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Condonation of delay:- The appeal is belated by 18 days. The assessee filed 2. application for condonation of delay, stating that the CIT (A) order dated 27/02/2024, was supposed to have been filed by 27/04/2024, but the same has been

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

u/s 147 on the basis of wrong reasons recorded and also agitated the issue that reassessment in this case has been done after three years where the income escaped assessment is less than 50 lacs (fifty lakhs). 5 I.T.A. No. 541/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 10. Ground nos. 1, 2 & 3 relates to the issue where the ld. first appellate

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

SUNITA TULI,PATHANKOT vs. ITO WARD-1, PATHANKOT, PATHANKOT

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

ITA 603/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 16.03.2023. 2 I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 94 (ninety-four) days. The assessee has prayed for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal whereby it is stated that the appellate order

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

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

ITA 183/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

ITA 184/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

ITA 182/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

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

147, so that the tribunal; an assessment including, by definition, reassessment, held the same to be covered within the purview of the first proviso to section 12A(2). Coming back to our discussion as to the purpose/reason/s for the stipulation of the condition of the pendency of the assessment proceedings before the AO, i.e., which inform the same

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

147, so that the tribunal; an assessment including, by definition, reassessment, held the same to be covered within the purview of the first proviso to section 12A(2). Coming back to our discussion as to the purpose/reason/s for the stipulation of the condition of the pendency of the assessment proceedings before the AO, i.e., which inform the same

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

147, so that the tribunal; an assessment including, by definition, reassessment, held the same to be covered within the purview of the first proviso to section 12A(2). Coming back to our discussion as to the purpose/reason/s for the stipulation of the condition of the pendency of the assessment proceedings before the AO, i.e., which inform the same

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

SHRI SAROOP HARI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

ITA 10/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

reassessment, inasmuch as, it deprived the assessee to file legal objections as mandated by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Drive Shaft 259 ITR 19(SC). 4. That without prejudice to above the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,17,400/- made u/s. 69A, without proper appreciation of the facts and the explanation