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.

157 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 249(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai375Chennai189Kolkata182Ahmedabad159Delhi157Bangalore145Chandigarh124Hyderabad118Jaipur104Karnataka102Surat75Raipur74Pune64Indore54Lucknow42Visakhapatnam39Cochin37Amritsar29Agra28Panaji28Patna23Cuttack22Rajkot15Guwahati14Nagpur14Jodhpur13Ranchi13Jabalpur9Allahabad8Calcutta8Varanasi6Dehradun6Telangana3Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)73Condonation of Delay56Addition to Income50Section 143(3)38Limitation/Time-bar35Section 12A32Section 25030Section 14827Section 147

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5626/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

condone the delay and admit the cross objection taken by the assessee for hearing. 6. In the cross objection, the assessee has taken legal issues. We, therefore, have decided to dispose of the cross objection first. 7. Ground No.3 in the cross objection taken by the assessee since not pressed stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Grounds No.1 & 2 relate

Showing 1–20 of 157 · Page 1 of 8

...
27
Section 15426
Section 249(2)23
Disallowance20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIMENSION PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1105/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu. & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

delay in issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act would be fatal to the re-assessment proceedings. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, it is held that as far as the second ground is concerned, the Petitioner should succeed. In that view of the matter, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the first ground

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/DEL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaghaziabad Development Authority Vs Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Tax India, Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Ghaziabad. New Delhi. Aaalg0072C

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 154

249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the Income Tax Act such as sections 274, 273, etc. The expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as similar other provisions

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3656/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 282

section 249(2) of the Act, 17.12.2022) 1961) 6 ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar as evident from table above, the time limit of filing of appeal expired on 15.01.2023 u/s 249(2), In view of the above facts the assessee has submit that the delay was unintentional, for bona fide reasons and due to the circumstances we, therefore pray

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3654/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 282

section 249(2) of the Act, 17.12.2022) 1961) 6 ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar as evident from table above, the time limit of filing of appeal expired on 15.01.2023 u/s 249(2), In view of the above facts the assessee has submit that the delay was unintentional, for bona fide reasons and due to the circumstances we, therefore pray

M/S DIGITAL RADIO (DELHI) BROADCASTING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No 1316 &1317/Del/2011 and ITA

ITA 1316/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm Andsh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd. V Acit C/O. O.P. Sapra & Associates, S Circle-10(1) C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Acit V Digital Radio (Delhi) Circle-10(1) S Broadcasting Ltd. New Delhi 401, Dakha House, 18/17, Wea Karol Bagh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Kolkata) V Acit Broadcasting Ltd. S Circle-10(1) C/O. O.P. Sapra & New Delhi Associates, C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7863G

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, CA, Sh. O.P. SapraFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT., DR
Section 35A

249/- as paid over the period of 10 years as per license term. b) Rs. 78,55,000/- u/s 37 (1) of the act being the annual license fee expenditure incurred by the assessee. 07. There is no dispute about the claim of deduction of assessee of Rs 3,00,80,222/- paid under phase – II of the licensing terms

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3048/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

section 249(2) of the IT Act. Therefore, there was no delay in filing of appeal if counted from the date of receipt of order. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not considering the submissions of assessee which were filed on merits of the case and arbitrarily dismissed the appeal

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3049/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

section 249(2) of the IT Act. Therefore, there was no delay in filing of appeal if counted from the date of receipt of order. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not considering the submissions of assessee which were filed on merits of the case and arbitrarily dismissed the appeal

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3051/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

section 249(2) of the IT Act. Therefore, there was no delay in filing of appeal if counted from the date of receipt of order. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not considering the submissions of assessee which were filed on merits of the case and arbitrarily dismissed the appeal

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3050/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

section 249(2) of the IT Act. Therefore, there was no delay in filing of appeal if counted from the date of receipt of order. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not considering the submissions of assessee which were filed on merits of the case and arbitrarily dismissed the appeal

B.B. NIGADE AND SONS AND UMA CONSTRUCTIONS JV,KOLHAPUR vs. TDS GHAZIABAD, TDS CPC GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4435/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4435/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम B.B.Nigade & Sons & Uma Tds, Cpc Aaykar Bhawan, Constructions Jv, Vs. Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, H.No.157A Nirmitee Bungalow, U.P. Plot No.64, Vaibhav Housing Soc., Ujalaiwadi, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aabfb4721A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 249(3)Section 250

2 “It is observed that the assessment order passed by TDS-CPC, Ghaziabad was served electronically and as such the taxpayer was required to file appeal within 30 days. Delays cannot be routinely excused. Where the delay is prolonged and the assessee is not able to show that the delay had occurred in spite of exercise of due attention

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , DELHI vs. LOGIC CONTROL PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3974/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158B

delayed return in response to the same. The return was filed beyond the stipulated time and hence the issue/service of notice u/s 143(2) is not applicable in such a case. 6. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee forcefully argued that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is a must while framing order

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3791/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 260A

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3792/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 260A

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3670/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

Section 249(3) of the I.T. Act. The appeal is therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeal being dismissed in limine, appellant's appeal is considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3671/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

Section 249(3) of the I.T. Act. The appeal is therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeal being dismissed in limine, appellant's appeal is considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

section 143(1) the Act was received with demand payable of Rs. 42,47,54,300/-. 30.09.2015 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee company. 29.10.2015 The AO vide order sheet entry dated 29.10.2015 asked the assessee to remove the defect in the return of income and pay taxes u/s 140A of the Act. However

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

section 143(1) the Act was received with demand payable of Rs. 42,47,54,300/-. 30.09.2015 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee company. 29.10.2015 The AO vide order sheet entry dated 29.10.2015 asked the assessee to remove the defect in the return of income and pay taxes u/s 140A of the Act. However

EAST END APARTMENTS CGHS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 60(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 250

249(3) of the Act and therefore the delay in filing of appeal before CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) may kindly be condoned and the appeal be directed to be decided on merits or alternatively should be restored back to the Assessing officer (A0) as the assessment order has been passed under section