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.

219 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai327Delhi219Chennai216Ahmedabad185Indore182Kolkata170Jaipur140Karnataka139Surat122Bangalore108Chandigarh100Lucknow85Pune69Raipur47Cochin45Panaji43Hyderabad43Cuttack40Nagpur40Rajkot37Allahabad31Patna28Jodhpur22Varanasi19Visakhapatnam17Guwahati14Amritsar12Ranchi9Agra8Jabalpur5SC4Telangana2Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 43B94Section 36(1)(va)84Addition to Income64Section 143(1)49Condonation of Delay48Disallowance41Section 12A31Section 153C24Section 139(1)

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7042/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Neel Kanth Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)Section 80I

condonation of delay in filing of this appeal, lacks credibility.Hence, the assessee’s appeal is held to be barred by Limitation, having regard to Section 253(3) read with Section 253(5

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 219 · Page 1 of 11

...
23
Section 15423
Limitation/Time-bar20
Section 25318
ITA 2783/DEL/2012[1993-94]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
27 Jul 2022
AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Section 144Section 154

condone delay under sub-section (5) to section 253 is neither automatic nor to be exercised in vaccum. The condition

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4666/DEL/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Section 144Section 154

condone delay under sub-section (5) to section 253 is neither automatic nor to be exercised in vaccum. The condition

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4667/DEL/2018[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Section 144Section 154

condone delay under sub-section (5) to section 253 is neither automatic nor to be exercised in vaccum. The condition

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2784/DEL/2012[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Section 144Section 154

condone delay under sub-section (5) to section 253 is neither automatic nor to be exercised in vaccum. The condition

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

condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for availing the remedy after expiry of the limitation. Such reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression “sufficient cause or reason” as provided in sub-section (5) of section 253

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 181/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 153ASection 253Section 5

5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contents of the letter requesting for condonation of delay. We are aware that the power to condone the appeal must be exercised liberally in favour of the applicant, especially where the appellant is a Government body and the exchequer is involved. For this, we draw support from the decision

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1364/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kirshnan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

253(2) copy of the minutes are referred but same were not enclosed. It was further stated that as decision cited by the ld CIT DR equally applied ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 to the revenue where there is a gross negligence or inaction

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

5 and 6] [In favour of assessee/ matter remanded] II. A1 Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society vs CIT(E) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 114 (Bombay HC) Section 119, read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Central Board of Direct Taxes- Instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay in filing Form 10B) -Assessment year 2016- 17 - Assessee, a charitable trust

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

5 and 6] [In favour of assessee/ matter remanded] II. A1 Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society vs CIT(E) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 114 (Bombay HC) Section 119, read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Central Board of Direct Taxes- Instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay in filing Form 10B) -Assessment year 2016- 17 - Assessee, a charitable trust

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

5) of section 253 of the Act, itself says that "if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause is there sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal" Therefore, in the present case, there is sufficient cause for not present the appeal within time. November The Appellant was suffering from hyperactivity

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

5) of section 253 of the Act, itself says that "if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause is there sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal" Therefore, in the present case, there is sufficient cause for not present the appeal within time. November The Appellant was suffering from hyperactivity

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

253 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within sixty days of order dated 10.1.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and as such the appeal was due to be filed by 11.3.2025 whereas the appeal has been filed on 03.06.2025 leading to a delay of 64 days

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

253 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within sixty days of order dated 10.1.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and as such the appeal was due to be filed by 11.3.2025 whereas the appeal has been filed on 03.06.2025 leading to a delay of 64 days

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4203/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

condoning the delay in filing these appeals as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. 9. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4204/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

condoning the delay in filing these appeals as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. 9. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5

DELHI AGROHA VIKAS TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(E) DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 9348/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2020

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

condonation of the delay is reproduced as under: “5. It is respectfully and humbly prayed that in view of provisions of section 253

DELHI AGROHA VIKAS TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(E) DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 9349/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2020

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

condonation of the delay is reproduced as under: “5. It is respectfully and humbly prayed that in view of provisions of section 253

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. D.K. JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1485/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahuacit D. K. Jain Circle – 32(1) D-19, Nazamuddin East, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam JainFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR

condone the delay if there was sufficient cause for the delay in the 7 submission of the appeal. In the case of Vedabai alias Vijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798' (SC), where it was held that while exercising discretion under section 5

VSR INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VASANT VIHAR DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3153/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 43B

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. 9. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5