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 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka102Mumbai65Chandigarh61Delhi54Ahmedabad54Jaipur52Chennai43Kolkata40Hyderabad34Bangalore32Surat25Cuttack14Nagpur13Lucknow10Pune9Indore7Cochin7Patna4Visakhapatnam3Panaji3Rajkot2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Jabalpur1Agra1Raipur1Rajasthan1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 15428Section 13226Condonation of Delay24Addition to Income19Section 271A18Section 153C12Penalty12Section 143(3)11Limitation/Time-bar

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 787/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

delay. Assessee has also filed an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of the appeal (which is same as the reasons stated in the condonation petition). 10. In the instant case, it is a strange situation where the CIT(A) has first disposed off the penalty order when appeals against the quantum assessments are still pending before

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 27110
Disallowance8
Section 2507

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 786/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

delay. Assessee has also filed an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of the appeal (which is same as the reasons stated in the condonation petition). 10. In the instant case, it is a strange situation where the CIT(A) has first disposed off the penalty order when appeals against the quantum assessments are still pending before

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 785/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

delay. Assessee has also filed an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of the appeal (which is same as the reasons stated in the condonation petition). 10. In the instant case, it is a strange situation where the CIT(A) has first disposed off the penalty order when appeals against the quantum assessments are still pending before

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2396/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 36Section 5

condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income from business and income from other

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2397/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 36Section 5

condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income from business and income from other

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

M/S. ABS FUJITSU GENERAL PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 845/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar J Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 37

section 37 of the Act. 3. In response to this adjustment, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 359 days. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay. The matter was then taken to the ITAT, which upheld the findings of the ld. CIT(A) through its order dated July

SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1182/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V Chauhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 7.2. On the merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application under Rule 29A of the Act seeking admission of additional evidences viz., RTC certificate and the partition statement that was filed by the family members of the assessee in respect

SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1183/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V Chauhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 7.2. On the merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application under Rule 29A of the Act seeking admission of additional evidences viz., RTC certificate and the partition statement that was filed by the family members of the assessee in respect

SRI SURESH H KERUDI ,BAGALKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

ITA 2951/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri G Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR-I)
Section 132Section 153CSection 271Section 271A

delay in fling the appeals is condoned. 4. In all these appeals, the issue that requires adjudication is as to whether the revenue authorities were justified in imposing penalty on the assessee u/s. 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. The admitted factual position is that assessee is an individual. He was a partner of a firm

SRI SURESH H KERUDI ,BAGALKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

ITA 2954/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri G Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR-I)
Section 132Section 153CSection 271Section 271A

delay in fling the appeals is condoned. 4. In all these appeals, the issue that requires adjudication is as to whether the revenue authorities were justified in imposing penalty on the assessee u/s. 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. The admitted factual position is that assessee is an individual. He was a partner of a firm

SRI SURESH H KERUDI ,BAGALKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

ITA 2950/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri G Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR-I)
Section 132Section 153CSection 271Section 271A

delay in fling the appeals is condoned. 4. In all these appeals, the issue that requires adjudication is as to whether the revenue authorities were justified in imposing penalty on the assessee u/s. 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. The admitted factual position is that assessee is an individual. He was a partner of a firm

SRI SURESH H KERUDI ,BAGALKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

ITA 2955/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri G Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR-I)
Section 132Section 153CSection 271Section 271A

delay in fling the appeals is condoned. 4. In all these appeals, the issue that requires adjudication is as to whether the revenue authorities were justified in imposing penalty on the assessee u/s. 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. The admitted factual position is that assessee is an individual. He was a partner of a firm