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.

19 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Surat33Cochin28Bangalore27Mumbai22Delhi21Karnataka21Chennai19Pune17Jaipur16Kolkata14Hyderabad13Ahmedabad11Lucknow10Nagpur8Indore7Chandigarh6Cuttack5Visakhapatnam4Jodhpur4Calcutta3Jabalpur3Amritsar2Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Guwahati1Varanasi1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271B27Section 273B14Condonation of Delay14Section 14413Penalty13Section 269S12Section 44A11Section 271D11Section 271(1)(b)10

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

Natural Justice10
Addition to Income9
Section 143(3)8
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 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

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

M/S. MAHESHWARI BUILDERS,ADYAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 253(2)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 5

condoned in the light of reasonable cause that exists in the delay. He submitted that provisions of section 271B of the Act is not mandatory and is subjected to the provisions of section 273B

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGEL, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2165/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee. adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee. 3. Before adverting to the grounds raised in these appeals, it is first Before adverting to the grounds raised in these appeals, it is first Before adverting

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGE 1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2166/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee. adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee. 3. Before adverting to the grounds raised in these appeals, it is first Before adverting to the grounds raised in these appeals, it is first Before adverting

KONDA SEENIVASAIYER DAMODHARAN KISHORI LAL,MADURAI vs. DCIT, NCC-2, , MADURAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3873/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

condoned. 9. On the issue of levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was liable to get its accounts audited u/s.44AB of the Act, as the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. It is also undisputed that the audit was completed on 28.10.2017 within the prescribed due date. The only lapse

RASAIYAN MARIYA ALASU RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 997/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

condone delay in filing of these appeals and admit appeals filed by the assessee for adjudication. :-2-: ITA. Nos: 997/Chny/2025 3. The following grounds of appeal are raised by the assessee: a) The penalty order of the ld.CIT(A) is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case. b) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in levying penalty

CHENNIAPPAN VENKATESWARAN,KANGEYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3111/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3110, 3111 & 3112/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Anna Cell Com, V. Ward -1(4), 255, R.M. Tower Main Road, Tirupur. Kangeyam – 638 701. [Pan: Adhpv-7648-F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

condone delay in filing of these appeals and admit appeals filed by the assessee for adjudication. :-3-: ITA. Nos: 3110 to 3112/Chny/2024 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a non filer and carrying on the business of distribution and sale of mobile recharge vouchers and sim cards under the trade name

CHENNIAPPAN VENKATESWARAN,KANGEYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3112/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3110, 3111 & 3112/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Anna Cell Com, V. Ward -1(4), 255, R.M. Tower Main Road, Tirupur. Kangeyam – 638 701. [Pan: Adhpv-7648-F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

condone delay in filing of these appeals and admit appeals filed by the assessee for adjudication. :-3-: ITA. Nos: 3110 to 3112/Chny/2024 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a non filer and carrying on the business of distribution and sale of mobile recharge vouchers and sim cards under the trade name

CHENNIAPPAN VENKATESWARAN,KANGEYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3110/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3110, 3111 & 3112/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Anna Cell Com, V. Ward -1(4), 255, R.M. Tower Main Road, Tirupur. Kangeyam – 638 701. [Pan: Adhpv-7648-F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

condone delay in filing of these appeals and admit appeals filed by the assessee for adjudication. :-3-: ITA. Nos: 3110 to 3112/Chny/2024 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a non filer and carrying on the business of distribution and sale of mobile recharge vouchers and sim cards under the trade name

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. DR. GANESAN'S HITECH DIAGNOSTICS CENTRE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3294/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3294/Mds/2016, 1761/Mds/2017 & 1762/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Dr.Ganesan’S Hitech The Deputy Commissioner Of Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Income Tax, No.1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 010. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aadcd7458H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Deepa, CAFor Respondent: 20.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

condoning the delay, appeal in ITA No.3294 of 2016 has become infructuous and accordingly it is dismissed. ITA No.1761 & 1762/Mds/2017 3. (i) ITA No. 1761 of 2017 for the assessment year 2012-13: The Revenue has raised three elaborate grounds in its appeal, however the crux of the issue is that “the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty

DURAISAMY RAJESWARI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 673/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:673/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Duraiswamy Rajeswari, Ito, 17, Lakshmanan Nagar, Vs. Non-Corp Ward 3(1), 2Nd Street, Coimbatore. Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Afipr-0877-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Mathangi, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Ms. M. Mathangi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The impugned Order is illegal, perverse and liable to be qualified 2. The Learned Appellate Authority erred in not considering the grounds and submission filed by the Appellant. 3. Without prejudice, the Impugned Penalty

SAHANA JEWELLERY EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3474/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a private limited company engaged in the business of jewellery, filed its return of income for A.Y.2016-17 on 11.01.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.23,46,520/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s.143

SHRI PERIYAKARUPPAN CHETTIYAR & CO.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2573/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2573/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Periyakaruppan Chettiyar & Co., V. The Income Tax Officer, C/O. S. Sridhar, Non Corporate Ward 5(4), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600020. Pan:Aaafp6538Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per A. Mohan Alankamony:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth,JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

condoned the delay in filing the audit report and thereby directed the Ld.AO to delete the penalty levied U/s.271B of the Act in similar circumstances. Therefore it was pleaded that in the case of the assessee also relief may be granted. The Ld.DR in other hand argued in support of the orders of the Revenue. 5. We have heard

SMT. G. PADMINI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2572/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2572/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. G. Padmini, V. The Income Tax Officer, C/O. S. Sridhar, Non Corporate Ward 5(4), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600020. Pan:Aahpp0733G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per A. Mohan Alankamony: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai In Ita No.140/Cit(A)-5/14-15 Dated 26.07.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed U/S. 271B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth,JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

condoned the delay in filing the audit report and thereby directed the Ld.AO to delete the penalty levied U/s.271B of the Act in similar circumstances. Therefore it was pleaded that in the case of the assessee also relief may be granted. The Ld.DR on other hand argued in support of the orders of the Revenue. 5. We have heard