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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 139(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai412Mumbai350Delhi334Kolkata279Bangalore225Ahmedabad191Jaipur185Hyderabad183Pune182Chandigarh124Indore91Cochin82Surat82Lucknow52Visakhapatnam51Raipur38Rajkot32Amritsar27Nagpur27Patna26Cuttack26Guwahati23Jodhpur17Agra16Panaji15Jabalpur12SC11Allahabad11Dehradun9Varanasi3Ranchi2

Key Topics

Section 153C9Section 143(1)9Section 139(1)7Section 153A6Section 115Section 143(1)(ii)5Section 1485Condonation of Delay5Section 10

RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/DDN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 2. As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. AY: 2011-12 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: That the Order passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED, STATION SUB AREA

4
Addition to Income4
Exemption3

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 617

delay of 75 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 2 Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under: “2. Brief facts of the case: The appellant is a company established under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, with

MR. RAKESH SHARMA,DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 39/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 153C

4. Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the delay condonation petition, we find that the reason given by the assessee is bonafide and there was no malafide intention as assessee had appeared on all the occasions before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various issues including the legal issues. Under these circumstances, in the interest of justice

MR. RAKESH SHARMA,DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 40/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 153C

4. Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the delay condonation petition, we find that the reason given by the assessee is bonafide and there was no malafide intention as assessee had appeared on all the occasions before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various issues including the legal issues. Under these circumstances, in the interest of justice

MR. RAKESH SHARMA,DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 38/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 153C

4. Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the delay condonation petition, we find that the reason given by the assessee is bonafide and there was no malafide intention as assessee had appeared on all the occasions before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various issues including the legal issues. Under these circumstances, in the interest of justice

SWAMI SATYAPRAKASHNAND SHIV MANDIR TRUST,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. AO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 93/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2022-23 Swami Satyaprakashanand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shiv Mandir Trust, Kali Kotdwar Mandir, Bareilley Haldwani (Uttrakhand) Bye Pass Road, Kishanpur, Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand Pin: 263148 Pan No. Aants6873L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

condone the delay in filing Form 10. 7. From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival submission, it is crystal clear that appellant/assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2022-23 on 16.08.2022 wherein assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The Trust had accumulated or set apart Rs.62,00,000/- for next year under Rule

LOKESH KUMAR, PROP.,KOTDWAR vs. ITO, KOTDWAR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5619/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Lokesh Kumar, Prop. Versus Income-Tax Officer, Ramesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Kotdwar. Durgapuri, Kotdwar. Pan: Ajrpk2548R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 68

139 days in filing the appeal. After perusing the explanation furnished by the assessee seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. When the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the assessee

K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 140BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)

4. That ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/- made by assessing officer (AO) at CPC u/s 143(1)(ii) through automated process u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by applying the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and disallowing

NEERAJ SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT ACIT CEN CIR , DDN , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Neeraj Singhal, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Apzps7059D Assessee By : Shri Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee is has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1) The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts by making an addition based on an image recovered from the mobile phone of a third party i.e. Sh. Anuj Kumar Singhal. This action