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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 272A(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi158Chennai86Surat50Mumbai48Bangalore44Visakhapatnam38Ahmedabad35Pune28Lucknow25Karnataka21Kolkata19Nagpur18Indore17Cuttack16Hyderabad16Cochin11Panaji10Patna9Jaipur8Rajkot8Chandigarh6Amritsar6Agra4Jabalpur3Raipur3SC2Varanasi1Jodhpur1Allahabad1Ranchi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 14411Section 142(1)6Section 143(2)6Penalty6Unexplained Money5Cash Deposit5Demonetization5Addition to Income5Section 69B

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 733/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

condoned and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.10 It was further submitted that there is a delay in other three appeals as well which have been filed by the assessee against the sustenance of the penalty orders passed under section 270A, 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d

4
Section 272A(1)(d)3
Section 69A2

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA,ITO WARD 6(3), LUDHIANA,CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 734/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

condoned and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.10 It was further submitted that there is a delay in other three appeals as well which have been filed by the assessee against the sustenance of the penalty orders passed under section 270A, 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

condoned and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.10 It was further submitted that there is a delay in other three appeals as well which have been filed by the assessee against the sustenance of the penalty orders passed under section 270A, 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 736/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

condoned and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.10 It was further submitted that there is a delay in other three appeals as well which have been filed by the assessee against the sustenance of the penalty orders passed under section 270A, 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d

LATE HARPAL SINGH THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, NIRMAL SAINI,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 973/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) on account of non compliance of the notice issued under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. He imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- for non compliance of these notices. 4. The impugned order dated 27.09.2022 was challenged before the CIT(A) but the appeal of the assessee was time barred by 172 days. This

BHOOPRAM SHARMA,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1, PANCHKULA

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

ITA 860/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with statutory notices. The total assessed income was computed as Rs. 79,32,230/-, comprising the declared income of Rs. 2,86,490/-, the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 58,97,020/-, and the additional turnover-based income of Rs. 17,48,720/-. The AO issued the assessment order along with a demand notice