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.

55 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai184Bangalore122Delhi80Ahmedabad73Chennai55Hyderabad52Chandigarh42Jaipur41Pune39Kolkata27Rajkot24Karnataka21Nagpur17Indore13Patna9Surat8Raipur7Lucknow6Agra5Allahabad4Cochin4Visakhapatnam2Jabalpur2Jodhpur2Amritsar1Panaji1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 153A70Section 143(3)65Addition to Income38Section 13228Section 143(1)25Section 234B25Section 234A23Section 253(5)21Condonation of Delay

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

234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3

20
Section 14717
Natural Justice13
Reassessment12
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

234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

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

234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

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

234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

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

234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

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

234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 842/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Hyundai Motor India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park Income Tax, Irrungattukottai, 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Sriperumbudur Taluk, Ring Road, Kancheepuram District, Anna Nagar Western Tamil Nadu-602117 Extension, Chennai-600101 [Pan: Aaach2364M] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

For Respondent: 13.11.2019
Section 234C

delay and justification for deferment of payment of advance tax, is immaterial. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear whatever be the reason, when there is deferment in payment of advance tax, and if the stipulated amount has not been paid on the required date, as per Section 211 of the Act, then the consequences follow automatically and compensatory

VEERAVEL TRUST,,TIRUCHENGODE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, , SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2064/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234A

234C.” 3. At the outset, learned AR for the assessee submitted that appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 37 days for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the assessee could not file appeal within the time allowed under

PALAM RURAL CENTRE,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1560/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 [Arising In Ita No.: 1560/Chny/2025] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Palam Rural Centre, The Asst. Commissioner Of Pethampalayam, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Veerapandi S.O., Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 641 605. [Pan: Aaatp-2929-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Edser Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Edser Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12ASection 139

condonation request only after Centralised Processing Centre ("CPC") sent an intimation about non-filing of Form 10B." "9. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are satisfied that the delay was not intentional or 2024:KER:59378 WP(C) 17059/2024 and Conn.Cases deliberate. Petitioner cannot be prejudiced on account of an ignorance or error committed by professional engaged

SHANMUGASUNDARAM VENKATACHALAPATHY,TIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

ITA 2056/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

234C and 234D of the Act which is consequential. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, before commencement of during proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 2. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal which reads as under: 3 ITA2056/Chny/2024 Shri Shanmugaundaram Venkatachalapathy Vs ITO “12. The Learned

M/S. SILICON INDIA PVT.LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 597/CHNY/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.597/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Silicon India Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jhaver Centre, No.72, Marshalls Corporate Circle – 6(2), Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aaecs1513K] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Dated 30.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1.1 The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous, Arbitrary & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 1.2 The Cit(Appeals) Also Went Wrong In Passing The Impugned Order In A Casual Manner Without Applying His Mind Neither To The Facts Of The Case Nor To The Submissions Made Before Him. 2.1 The Cit(Appeals) Having Noticed That The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Merely Accept The Returned Income Ignoring The Relief Granted By The Cit(Appeals) In His Order Dated 19.12.2011 & By The Hon’Ble Tribunal In Its Order Dated 04.04.2013, Went Wrong In Proceeding To Confirm The Order Impugned Before Him.

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 244A

234C amounting to ₹.54,888/-. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 42 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the delay in support of an affidavit, to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3456/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 19.12.2019
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 234ASection 234BSection 253(5)

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3462/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 19.12.2019
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 234ASection 234BSection 253(5)

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3458/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 19.12.2019
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 234ASection 234BSection 253(5)

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3460/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 19.12.2019
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 234ASection 234BSection 253(5)

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3457/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 19.12.2019
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 234ASection 234BSection 253(5)

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3459/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 19.12.2019
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 234ASection 234BSection 253(5)

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3461/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 19.12.2019
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 234ASection 234BSection 253(5)

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

GOMATHI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP. WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1504/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Gomathi, Dcit, No. 13/51, Kongu Salai, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 9(1). Egmore, Chennai. Chennai –600 008. [Pan:Asmpg-0601-K] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. Pradeep, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: 1) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest deduction of Rs. 18,22,375/- under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) The learned CIT(A) failed

PRECOT LIMITED ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Precot Limited Sf No.559/4, D Block, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, Hanudev Info Park, Nava India Road Corporate Circle-2, Udaiyampalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 028. Pan : Aabcp 3038K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 10(14)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The first issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to order of the CIT(A) confirming disallowance of payments made belatedly on account of employees contribution of ESI & PF under respective statutes. 3 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief