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 “condonation of delay”+ Section 271(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai602Delhi464Chennai329Kolkata301Ahmedabad250Jaipur240Bangalore200Surat159Pune147Hyderabad128Karnataka126Indore102Chandigarh63Rajkot61Lucknow57Nagpur54Cuttack43Calcutta43Cochin40Patna35Visakhapatnam33Agra26Guwahati25Raipur24Amritsar24Ranchi23Panaji17Jabalpur13SC11Allahabad10Dehradun7Jodhpur5Varanasi3Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Penalty50Section 14847Section 27142Addition to Income40Section 271(1)(c)29Section 14726Condonation of Delay25Limitation/Time-bar24Section 144

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

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

ITA 941/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, there is a delay in filing of the appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing both the parties and the considering the affidavit of the assessee placed on record, I find that there was reasonable cause in the delayed filing of the appeal, the same is hereby

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

22
Section 271(1)(b)18
Section 143(3)18
Section 142(1)17

ACIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

ITA 344/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

delay in ITA No. 343/Chd/2020 and 344/Chd/2020 is condoned. 5 3. The facts in brief, are that there was a search and seizure operations conducted u/s 132 on 02.09.2011 in 'Bajwa Group of Cases. During the course of search seizure, the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 28,56,53,000/- for the Asstt. Year 2011-12 and such disclosure

ACIT,CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

ITA 343/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

delay in ITA No. 343/Chd/2020 and 344/Chd/2020 is condoned. 5 3. The facts in brief, are that there was a search and seizure operations conducted u/s 132 on 02.09.2011 in 'Bajwa Group of Cases. During the course of search seizure, the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 28,56,53,000/- for the Asstt. Year 2011-12 and such disclosure

M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD.,KHARAR vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

ITA 1529/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

delay in ITA No. 343/Chd/2020 and 344/Chd/2020 is condoned. 5 3. The facts in brief, are that there was a search and seizure operations conducted u/s 132 on 02.09.2011 in 'Bajwa Group of Cases. During the course of search seizure, the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 28,56,53,000/- for the Asstt. Year 2011-12 and such disclosure

JYOTI SHARMA,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANCHKULA

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

ITA 192/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 245Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(b) of the Act where again, for similar reasons the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. I therefore find that there are divergent views taken by the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the present appeal and the other two appeals whereas the reasons and explanation submitted by the assessee seeking

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 632/CHANDI/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(37)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 253Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

delay of 181 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. In the present appeal the assessee has raised following grounds: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 729/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 5Section 68

2 emanates from a penalty order dated 20.06.2019 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. First Appellate Authority has decided quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal by way of separate orders on 30.04.2024. First we take quantum appeal. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has applied for an adjournment however, after perusal

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 728/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 5Section 68

2 emanates from a penalty order dated 20.06.2019 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. First Appellate Authority has decided quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal by way of separate orders on 30.04.2024. First we take quantum appeal. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has applied for an adjournment however, after perusal

SH. GURPREET SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI

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

ITA 476/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs.31,21,238/- u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act which is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified. 3. That the penalty imposed under section

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 926/CHANDI/2025[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

2. ITA No.925/CHD/2025 emerges out of a quantum proceeding against an assessment order dated 05.01.2024 passed u/s 147 read with Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 925/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

2. ITA No.925/CHD/2025 emerges out of a quantum proceeding against an assessment order dated 05.01.2024 passed u/s 147 read with Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

2. ITA No.925/CHD/2025 emerges out of a quantum proceeding against an assessment order dated 05.01.2024 passed u/s 147 read with Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas

SHIMLA MEDICOS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 302/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L Negi

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 143(3) of the Act (for short ‘the Act’) and vide second order the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal file by the assessee ITA Nos. 302 & 303-c-20- Shimla Medicos, Chandigarh 2 against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

M/S SHIMLA MEDICOS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 303/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L Negi

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 143(3) of the Act (for short ‘the Act’) and vide second order the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal file by the assessee ITA Nos. 302 & 303-c-20- Shimla Medicos, Chandigarh 2 against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

M/S ADITYA MEDICOS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 300/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L Negi(Ita Nos. 300 & 301/Chd/2020) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Aditya Medicos, The Dcit, बनाम Shop No. 4, New Shopping Central Circle-1, Complex, Chandigarh Sector 12, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaqfa8675H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

section 143(3) of the Act (for short ‘the Act’) and vide second order the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal file by the assessee ITA Nos. 300 & 301-Chd-2020- M/s Aditya Medicos, Chandigarh 2 against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

M/S ADITYA MEDICOS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 301/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L Negi(Ita Nos. 300 & 301/Chd/2020) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Aditya Medicos, The Dcit, बनाम Shop No. 4, New Shopping Central Circle-1, Complex, Chandigarh Sector 12, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaqfa8675H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

section 143(3) of the Act (for short ‘the Act’) and vide second order the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal file by the assessee ITA Nos. 300 & 301-Chd-2020- M/s Aditya Medicos, Chandigarh 2 against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

EMMBROS AUTOCOMP LIMITED,BADDI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1172/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1172/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Emmbros Autocomp The Acit, बनाम Limited, Village Katha, Circle, Baddi, Parwanoo Vs. Distt. Solan 173220 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaace3489Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Raman Tiwari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions [‘(Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 801CSection 80I

2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts to confirmed the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 27,85,000/ for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income in respect of claim of deduction under section 80IC whereas the issue itself was debatable

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 904/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

delay so happened is hereby condoned and all these appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA Nos. 903 to 905-Chd-2019 - Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner Nahan & Othrs 3 3. Since common issue relating to levy of penalty u/s 271CA is involved, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 903/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

delay so happened is hereby condoned and all these appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA Nos. 903 to 905-Chd-2019 - Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner Nahan & Othrs 3 3. Since common issue relating to levy of penalty u/s 271CA is involved, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 905/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

delay so happened is hereby condoned and all these appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA Nos. 903 to 905-Chd-2019 - Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner Nahan & Othrs 3 3. Since common issue relating to levy of penalty u/s 271CA is involved, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent