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.

86 results for “condonation of delay”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai106Kolkata100Chennai86Bangalore82Delhi79Hyderabad77Jaipur46Raipur44Chandigarh34Rajkot25Pune20Patna19Surat16Indore13Ahmedabad8Nagpur8Visakhapatnam8Cuttack7Lucknow7Cochin6Kerala4Panaji4Jodhpur2SC2Calcutta1Ranchi1Guwahati1Allahabad1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)65Section 133A52Addition to Income52Section 14850Survey u/s 133A50Section 14732Section 26328Condonation of Delay20Limitation/Time-bar

KISHORE NANWANI,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(1), PUDUCHERRY

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

ITA 955/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.D.V.Subba Rao, JCITFor Respondent: 22.10.2019
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253(3)

condone this delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee with tribunal with delay of 340 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The main reason for filing this appeal late as stated by assessee in his affidavit is that the assessee received the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A) but misplaced

MR. C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN,,THIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, WARD - I (2),, TUTICORIN

Showing 1–20 of 86 · Page 1 of 5

17
Section 250(6)15
Section 6813
Business Income13

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2615/CHNY/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / अपीलाथ+/ ,-थ+/ Sl. No.

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble ITAT. I.T.A Nos.2608 to 2615/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A survey u/s. 133A

MR. C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN,,THIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, WARD - I (2),, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2608/CHNY/2019[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2021AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / अपीलाथ+/ ,-थ+/ Sl. No.

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble ITAT. I.T.A Nos.2608 to 2615/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A survey u/s. 133A

MR. C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN,,THIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, WARD - I (2),, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2609/CHNY/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2021AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / अपीलाथ+/ ,-थ+/ Sl. No.

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble ITAT. I.T.A Nos.2608 to 2615/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A survey u/s. 133A

MR. C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN,,THIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, WARD - I (2),, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2612/CHNY/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2021AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / अपीलाथ+/ ,-थ+/ Sl. No.

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble ITAT. I.T.A Nos.2608 to 2615/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A survey u/s. 133A

MR. C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN,,THIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, WARD - I (2),, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2613/CHNY/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2021AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / अपीलाथ+/ ,-थ+/ Sl. No.

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble ITAT. I.T.A Nos.2608 to 2615/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A survey u/s. 133A

MR. C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN,,THIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, WARD - I (2),, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2614/CHNY/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / अपीलाथ+/ ,-थ+/ Sl. No.

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble ITAT. I.T.A Nos.2608 to 2615/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A survey u/s. 133A

MR. C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN,,THIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, WARD - I (2),, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2611/CHNY/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2021AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / अपीलाथ+/ ,-थ+/ Sl. No.

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble ITAT. I.T.A Nos.2608 to 2615/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A survey u/s. 133A

MR. C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN,,THIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, WARD - I (2),, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2610/CHNY/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2021AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / अपीलाथ+/ ,-थ+/ Sl. No.

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble ITAT. I.T.A Nos.2608 to 2615/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A survey u/s. 133A

P. PREETHA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-1,PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all three assessment years are dismissed

ITA 855/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 853, 854 & 855/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 18.03.2014, which revealed that although the assessee had taxable income, she had neither filed return of income nor paid the tax. Therefore, assessment has been reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, and notice u/s

P. PREETHA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-1,PONDY, PONDICHERRY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all three assessment years are dismissed

ITA 854/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 853, 854 & 855/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 18.03.2014, which revealed that although the assessee had taxable income, she had neither filed return of income nor paid the tax. Therefore, assessment has been reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, and notice u/s

P. PREETHA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-1, PONDY, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all three assessment years are dismissed

ITA 853/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 853, 854 & 855/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 18.03.2014, which revealed that although the assessee had taxable income, she had neither filed return of income nor paid the tax. Therefore, assessment has been reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, and notice u/s

RAMASAMY KANDASAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2023/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Ito, No.4/76, Sf No.927, Sukkaliyur, Ward-1, Karur-639 003. Karur. [Pan: Ajgpk 4945 H]

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

condoning the delay, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay. Having gone through the contents of the same, we find that cause Ramasamy Kandasamy :: 2 :: for delay was reasonable, so we excuse the same and proceed to hear the assessee’s appeal on merits. 3. The assessee has raised a legal issue that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 54/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35

delay of ‘9’ days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal filed by the Revenue is taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue for AY 2013-14 are as under: 1. The order of the Id. Commissioner of I.T. (Appeals) is opposed to law and Facts of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 55/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35

delay of ‘9’ days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal filed by the Revenue is taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue for AY 2013-14 are as under: 1. The order of the Id. Commissioner of I.T. (Appeals) is opposed to law and Facts of the case

V. GANESH,ARNI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2039/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2039 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-20 V.Ganesh, Pcit(Central), Chennai-1, No.65/Ia & Ib Sirumoor Road, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Rattinamangalam, Chennai Arni, Tamil Nadu-632316 [Pan: Agmpg7554M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Smt.G.Vardhini Karthick, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Adll.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Smt.G.Vardhini Karthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Adll.CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

133A in assessee’s case as result of which excess stock of 1,22,55,399/- was found and which was admitted by the assessee along with another unexplained expenses of Rs. 42,77,280/-. It was noted that the assessing officer had failed to assess the additional income @ rate of 60% as per section 115BBE r.w.s 69B assessed

SHRI K. PALANIVEL,,RASIPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-3,, NAMAKKAL

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 405/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The Ld. AR advanced arguments to submit that the assessee followed consistently method of accounting to value the stock and the estimation made by Ld. CIT(A) was not sustainable under law. The Ld. AR also submitted that Ld. AO could not consider the source

ITO, WARD-3, , NAMAKKAL vs. SHRI K. PALANIVEL,, NAMAKKAL

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 668/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The Ld. AR advanced arguments to submit that the assessee followed consistently method of accounting to value the stock and the estimation made by Ld. CIT(A) was not sustainable under law. The Ld. AR also submitted that Ld. AO could not consider the source

KALIMUTHU HARICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2672/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Shri Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar
Section 250(6)

survey U/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s business premises on 13.11.2013. In the scrutiny assessment proceedings since there was no proper response from the assessee, assessment order was passed by the Ld.AO U/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 on 28.03.2016 and for the assessment 2013-14 on 28.12.2016. Thereafter

KALIMUTHU HARICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2671/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Shri Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar
Section 250(6)

survey U/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s business premises on 13.11.2013. In the scrutiny assessment proceedings since there was no proper response from the assessee, assessment order was passed by the Ld.AO U/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 on 28.03.2016 and for the assessment 2013-14 on 28.12.2016. Thereafter