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.

312 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai387Mumbai348Delhi312Kolkata262Ahmedabad191Jaipur133Bangalore130Hyderabad111Pune109Surat74Amritsar56Indore53Chandigarh49Raipur42Patna38Visakhapatnam36Rajkot34Nagpur33Lucknow32Cochin26Cuttack19Agra14Guwahati11Varanasi6Telangana5Jabalpur4Allahabad4Dehradun3Panaji2Himachal Pradesh2Karnataka2Orissa2Calcutta1SC1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 147121Section 148116Section 6888Addition to Income71Section 153D50Section 143(3)46Reassessment46Section 26344Section 148A

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

ITA 4651/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

delay is condoned.\n\n4. The Revenue in its appeal challenged the order of the\nLd.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act and\nthe assessee in its cross objection challenged the validity of\n2\n\nI.T.A. No. 4651/Del/2018 & CO No.74/Del/2023\nreopening of assessment on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the\nAct

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

Showing 1–20 of 312 · Page 1 of 16

...
33
Section 153C25
Condonation of Delay24
Reopening of Assessment23
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

147 of the Act on 03/03/2023, and made an addition of Rs 3,60,51,890/- u/s 69A of the act as unexplained cash credit The Impugned order was passed on 03.03.2023 and appeal is filing on 25/09/2023 there is delay of 177 days. There is no proof of service of impugned order to the appellant. As a matter

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

147 of the Act on 03/03/2023, and made an addition of Rs 3,60,51,890/- u/s 69A of the act as unexplained cash credit The Impugned order was passed on 03.03.2023 and appeal is filing on 25/09/2023 there is delay of 177 days. There is no proof of service of impugned order to the appellant. As a matter

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2252/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 127Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. Referring to ground no.1 of grounds of appeal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings in as much as the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reasons

MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

ITA 2233/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

condonation of delay are allowed and appeals are admitted for hearing. Application for admission of additional grounds:- 8. In these applications assessee seeks to admit following additional grounds of appeal:- Additional Ground No.1 That under the facts, proceedings w/s.147/148 are unwarranted since initiated on the basis of information and documents found and seized in search of a 3rd party, from

MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

ITA 2231/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

condonation of delay are allowed and appeals are admitted for hearing. Application for admission of additional grounds:- 8. In these applications assessee seeks to admit following additional grounds of appeal:- Additional Ground No.1 That under the facts, proceedings w/s.147/148 are unwarranted since initiated on the basis of information and documents found and seized in search of a 3rd party, from

MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

ITA 2232/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

condonation of delay are allowed and appeals are admitted for hearing. Application for admission of additional grounds:- 8. In these applications assessee seeks to admit following additional grounds of appeal:- Additional Ground No.1 That under the facts, proceedings w/s.147/148 are unwarranted since initiated on the basis of information and documents found and seized in search of a 3rd party, from

NISHIT FINCAP P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 18(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1424/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153(1)Section 153CSection 68

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2010 for AY 2008-09. The case of the assessee was reopened vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 18.03.2015, which is after a period of four years

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 69C

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. This appeal is filed delayed by 62 days and an application dated 26.11.2025 for condonation of delay was filed wherein it is stated by the AR that due to negligence of Accountant who did not inform the assessee about the passing of the impugned order, therefore

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2765/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3703/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2984/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

reassessment\nfrom AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 and additions in all amounting to Rs.\n18,94,69,803/- were made u/s 2 (22) (e), which were confirmed by CIT\n(Appeal) - 7 in February 2015 in all four cases.\n5. All four following appeals of the Appellant were represented by the same\nprevious counsel, who had represented the appeals

AMIT GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8750/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryamit Gupta Vs. Ito D-63, Gf, Kaushambi, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad, Up-201 012 Ghaziabad

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reassessment order is also ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in rejecting the application of condonation of delay filed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition

VINIT KUMAR,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 2(5) NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7588/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalitas No.7588 & 7589/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Vinit Kumar, Income Tax Officer, C-66, 2Nd Floor, Ward-2(5), Noida. Sector-108, Noida, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Asjpk8057E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Chouhan, Ca Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01/04/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Both Dated 15.10.2025 For Ay 2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act Dt. 23.02.2024 & Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aac Of The Act Dt.12.07.2024. 2. Brief Facts Are That Appellant Is A Resident Individual & Not Filed His Return Of Income. The Ao Based On The Information That That Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 3,07,500/- In His Bank Account With Bank Of Baroda & No Return Of Income Was Filed, Initiated The Reassessment Proceedings After Following The Due Procedure

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

condone the delay in filing both the appeals before the learned CIT(A). Since the reassessment order was passed ex-party, therefore, in larger interest of justice, the appeal of the assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s 147

VINIT KUMAR,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD (2)(5) NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7589/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalitas No.7588 & 7589/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Vinit Kumar, Income Tax Officer, C-66, 2Nd Floor, Ward-2(5), Noida. Sector-108, Noida, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Asjpk8057E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Chouhan, Ca Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01/04/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Both Dated 15.10.2025 For Ay 2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act Dt. 23.02.2024 & Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aac Of The Act Dt.12.07.2024. 2. Brief Facts Are That Appellant Is A Resident Individual & Not Filed His Return Of Income. The Ao Based On The Information That That Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 3,07,500/- In His Bank Account With Bank Of Baroda & No Return Of Income Was Filed, Initiated The Reassessment Proceedings After Following The Due Procedure

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

condone the delay in filing both the appeals before the learned CIT(A). Since the reassessment order was passed ex-party, therefore, in larger interest of justice, the appeal of the assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s 147

ANANYA PORTFOLIO PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 2(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

reassessment order without appreciating that the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has been initiated on the basis of the alleged documents / information found during the course of search u/s. 132(1) of the Act which is impermissible as on the basis of such document / information, only proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act can be initiated and hence assumption

ANANYA PORTFOLIO PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 2(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1483/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

reassessment order without appreciating that the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has been initiated on the basis of the alleged documents / information found during the course of search u/s. 132(1) of the Act which is impermissible as on the basis of such document / information, only proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act can be initiated and hence assumption

LATE SHRI DULEECHANDA THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO,WARD- 1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1353/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") imposing an addition

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3214/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & AnkitFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserve to be condoned. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 Krishna Kumar Makrania 4. The assessee before us, mainly challenged the assessment proceedings on this particular count that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act have not been issued and served upon the assessee and the reassessment proceedings finalized u/s

CLAAS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :U/S 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Alkesh Babbar CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Saroha Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 200Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 8,10,12,600/-. Regular assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 24.2.2004 at an income of Rs. 8,91,11,357/-. Subsequently, the AO noticed that assessee had claimed and was allowed deduction