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.

3 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune24Hyderabad11Mumbai9Ahmedabad9Kolkata9Visakhapatnam9Delhi7Cochin6Jaipur5Lucknow4Rajkot4Chennai4Surat3Chandigarh3Bangalore3Indore2Amritsar2Nagpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271D8Section 271E6Section 272A(2)(e)3Penalty3Section 12A2Section 269S2Section 269T2

PRIYADARSHINI ULAVEESH KASETTY PATEL ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1089/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CA
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

section 269T would not be applicable to the facts of the case and hence the penalty u/s. 271E could not be levied. The AO confirmed the penalties. As against the said orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised several grounds. 4. The assessee had not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) in spite of four notices

PRIYADARSHINI ULAVEESH KASETTY PATEL ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CA
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

section 269T would not be applicable to the facts of the case and hence the penalty u/s. 271E could not be levied. The AO confirmed the penalties. As against the said orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised several grounds. 4. The assessee had not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) in spite of four notices

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION) WARD-3,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2020/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 272A(2)(e)Section 275(1)(c)

condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal. 5. The learned Counsel submitted that similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.754/Bang/2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15, Order dated 05.12.2023, wherein the assessee had filed the return of income belatedly on 31.12.2017 and the Hon’ble Tribunal haaaaas