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.

102 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 249(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai216 Chennai138 Kolkata128 Chandigarh116 Bangalore102 Delhi102 Ahmedabad101 Raipur71 Hyderabad70 Jaipur67 Pune55 Surat54 Indore53 Visakhapatnam36 Lucknow35 Panaji28 Agra25 Amritsar25 Patna23 Cuttack23 Nagpur14 Rajkot14 Guwahati12 Ranchi11 Jodhpur11 Jabalpur9 Allahabad6 Cochin5 Dehradun3 SC2 Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 143(1)90 Section 143(3)46 Condonation of Delay44 Addition to Income43 Section 25034 Section 14733 Limitation/Time-bar31 Section 15430 Section 249(3)

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)

Showing 1–20 of 102 · Page 1 of 6

26

Section 249(2)24

4. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeals before us and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 242/Del/2024 :- ―1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income

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)

4. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeals before us and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 242/Del/2024 :- ―1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income

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

249(3) of the Act. 3. The Ld. DR assisted us in going through the impugned order and the order of the Ld. AO as also the various documents filed by the assessee. The Ld. DR pointed out that delay cannot be condoned in each and every case and the reasons given by the assessee for his delay are generic

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

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 4445/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 4441/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 4442/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 4443/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 4444/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

UNITED BANK OF INDIA (FORMELY) NOW PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ,DELHI vs. ACIT LTU-1 KOLKATA (UNDER TRANSFER TO CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

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

ITA 387/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 154Section 234DSection 244ASection 250

4 "In the matter of condonation of delay under section 249(3) in presenting the appeal for assessment year 2008-09. That

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

RAJPAL,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD -2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR

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

ITA 392/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

section 249(4) has been made by the appellant and the appeal is stated to be out of time. Thus, there is unjustifiable delay in filing the appeal. Condonation

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

4) For such further and other reliefs, including costs of this Petition, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the Interest of Justice and Equity.” ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar 2.2 Further, the assessee’s application for condonation of delay for filing the appeal before

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

4) For such further and other reliefs, including costs of this Petition, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the Interest of Justice and Equity.” ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar 2.2 Further, the assessee’s application for condonation of delay for filing the appeal before

SURESH KUMAR,SIRSA vs. ITO TDS, HISAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 859/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5

249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as not maintainable.” 4. Against the dismissal of appeal on condonation of delay, the Assessee preferred the instant appeal. 5. Heard

SURESH KUMAR,SIRSA vs. ITO TDS, HISAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 848/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5

249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as not maintainable.” 4. Against the dismissal of appeal on condonation of delay, the Assessee preferred the instant appeal. 5. Heard

M/S PUBLIC EDUCATION BOARD REWARI,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARYANA

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

ITA 2988/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/.S Public Education Board Rewari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. Kishan Lal Public Col, Delhi Exemption Ward, Road, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Rohtak (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabap5553F

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 102Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

section 249(4)(b) of the Act M/.s Public Education Board Rewari stating that assessee had not deposited advance tax on the income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the outset, we find that the appeal has been preferred by the assessee before us with a delay of 398 days. Considering the reasons adduced

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

condone the delay. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has grievously erred in law and on facts, confirming the order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called