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.

463 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai636Delhi506Chennai463Ahmedabad358Kolkata357Hyderabad277Bangalore274Jaipur242Pune241Surat202Indore180Rajkot130Lucknow116Visakhapatnam113Amritsar108Chandigarh99Patna85Nagpur64Agra63Cuttack52Cochin49Raipur35Jabalpur32Guwahati32Panaji30Allahabad28Jodhpur22Dehradun18Calcutta16SC9Karnataka6Ranchi6Varanasi5Orissa3Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14773Section 14873Section 14461Addition to Income53Penalty23Section 69A20Condonation of Delay20Section 143(3)19Section 148A18

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2017[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 463 · Page 1 of 24

...
Cash Deposit18
Section 153A17
Section 25016
ITA 1107/CHNY/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1109/CHNY/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1108/CHNY/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1110/CHNY/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1111/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

144 2. The brief facts leading to the appeal are that the assessee filed a declaration in Form 1 before the Designated Authority in terms of section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2016-17, the details of which are as follows: Sl. Assessment Amount of No. Year Undisclosed Income declared

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1566/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

144 2. The brief facts leading to the appeal are that the assessee filed a declaration in Form 1 before the Designated Authority in terms of section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2016-17, the details of which are as follows: Sl. Assessment Amount of No. Year Undisclosed Income declared

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI , CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3046/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A

section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the delay was due to bona fide reasons and should be condoned

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3045/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, CA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69A

condonation of delay.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "148", "148A", "149", "151", "69A", "69" ], "issues": "Whether the notice issued under

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3048/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the delay of 604 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient cause and ought to be condoned

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3047/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

delay, was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide reasons, and thus deserved to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 2. Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [“Assessing Officer”] u/s.147 r.w.s 144

TIRUPUR ARUNACHALA GOUNDER RADHAMBIKAI KUPPUSAMY,TIRUPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.363/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) T A G Radhambikai Kuppusamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Mp Nagar Extension, Che –C (68) (1) Suriya Prabha Garden, Chennai. Tirupur 641 607

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramachandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 51

144 read with section 144B of the Act and added Rs.54,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. As against the assessment order dated 14.03.2023, the assessee has filed an appeal u/s 250 of the Act before the CIT(A) with a delay of 239 days. 5. As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds on the legal ground

ITA 3049/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

Delay condoned.\n2. Exemption Application is allowed.\n3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – Revenue\nand having gone through the materials on record, we find no good reason to\ninterfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.\n3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending\napplications, if any, shall also stand disposed

C-2480 ELAYANGARAM PACCS,TIRUPATTUR vs. ITO, TIRUPATHUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4037/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4037/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 C-2480 Elayanagaram Assessment Unit, Primary Agricultural V Nfac, Income Tax Cooperative Credit Society, S. Department, Elayanagaram, Tirupattur. Ito-Che-W- Pan: Aahfc7142G (146)(2), Chennai. Appellant Respondent Assessee By Mr. Shyam Sundar – Ca Revenue By Ms. V Awasthay – Jcit Date Of Hearing 17/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Delhi [‘The Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 80P(2)(a)

144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.51,16,436/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition on cash deposit in the current account maintained with IDBI Bank on unexplained money of the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 219/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

sections 143(3) / 144 of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),\npertaining to the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2018-19, the\nparticulars whereof are set out hereunder:\nITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others\nMr. P. Palanisamy\nM/s. P.P. Financiers\nMr. P. Kuppuchamy\nMr. L. Karuppusamy\nM/s. P.P. Enterprises\nMr. Palanisamy Raghupathy\nM/s. P.P. Constructions\nMr. Sellamuthu

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3390/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

sections 143(3) / 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pertaining to the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2018-19, the particulars whereof are set out hereunder:\nITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others\nMr. P. Palanisamy\nM/s. P.P. Financiers\nMr. P. Kuppuchamy\nMr. L. Karuppusamy\nM/s. P.P. Enterprises\nMr. Palanisamy Raghupathy\nM/s. P.P. Constructions\nMr. Sellamuthu

PALANISAMY RAGHUPATHY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3374/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

sections 143(3) / 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pertaining to the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2018-19, the particulars whereof are set out hereunder: ITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others Mr. P. Palanisamy M/s. P.P. Financiers Mr. P. Kuppuchamy Mr. L. Karuppusamy M/s. P.P. Enterprises Mr. Palanisamy Raghupathy M/s. P.P. Constructions Mr. Sellamuthu

PALANISAMY RAGHYPATHY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3372/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

sections 143(3) / 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pertaining to the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2018-19, the particulars whereof are set out hereunder:\nITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others Mr. P. Palanisamy M/s. P.P. Financiers Mr. P. Kuppuchamy Mr. L. Karuppusamy M/s. P.P. Enterprises Mr. Palanisamy Raghupathy M/s. P.P. Constructions Mr. Sellamuthu

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3392/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

sections 143(3) / 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pertaining to the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2018-19, the particulars whereof are set out hereunder: ITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others Mr. P. Palanisamy M/s. P.P. Financiers Mr. P. Kuppuchamy Mr. L. Karuppusamy M/s. P.P. Enterprises Mr. Palanisamy Raghupathy M/s. P.P. Constructions Mr. Sellamuthu