Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

112 results for “condonation of delay”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,432 Mumbai1,411 Delhi964 Pune665 Kolkata592 Ahmedabad464 Jaipur416 Bangalore405 Hyderabad317 Surat242 Chandigarh200 Indore183 Karnataka175 Cochin159 Nagpur153 Raipur153 Lucknow152 Rajkot138 Visakhapatnam117 Cuttack112 Amritsar84 Patna73 Agra59 Calcutta54 Guwahati43 Panaji31 Ranchi30 SC27 Dehradun25 Jabalpur25 Jodhpur19 Allahabad18 Telangana12 Varanasi12 Orissa4 Punjab & Haryana2 Himachal Pradesh2 Rajasthan1 VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Penalty82 Section 271A72 Section 271(1)(c)65 Section 14752 Section 270A46 Condonation of Delay43 Addition to Income37 Limitation/Time-bar37 Section 143(3)

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned

Showing 1–20 of 112 · Page 1 of 6

31

SAHOO DIOSTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned

SAHOO DISTRIBNUTORS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST,CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AAYAKAR BHAWAN

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,SHELTER SQUARE,

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned

SANDHYA MALLICK ,KENDRAPADA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 172/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Sandhya Mallick, At: Andhara, Sandhya Mallick, At: Andhara, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Bhubaneswar. Ito, Ward 2(2), Bhubaneswar. Pattamumndai, Dist: Kendrapara Pattamumndai, Dist: Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Axwpm 2241 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate K.K.Bal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/ /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 24.9.2018 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 5.8.2020 Condonation Petition Dated 5.8.2020 Supported By An Affidavit Sworn By The Supported By An Affidavit Sworn By The Assessee, Wherein, It Is Stated As Under: , Wherein, It Is Stated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr

penalty notices dated 3.6.2020, which was received by the assessee on 10.6.2020, immediately, the assessee engaged a new A.R. to file appeal before the Tribunal against the first appellate order. Ld A.R. stated that due to inaction of the previous A.R., the assessee should not be penalized and requested to condone the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 25/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 57/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 23/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 28/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in ITA No.22/CTK/2025 are reproduced hereunder: “1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay