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.

84 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,337Kolkata847Chennai761Delhi610Pune569Bangalore498Ahmedabad411Patna338Jaipur316Amritsar228Surat222Raipur221Indore194Hyderabad185Rajkot177Nagpur176Panaji147Chandigarh120Cochin106Karnataka103Lucknow99Visakhapatnam88Guwahati84Agra70Calcutta41Jabalpur39Cuttack37Allahabad29Jodhpur20Varanasi16Dehradun14Ranchi12SC4Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 250111Addition to Income46Condonation of Delay38Section 734Section 80I30Section 153A27Section 143(3)23Section 1422Section 144

ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(4), SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. NORTH EAST SOCIETY OF SISTERS OF THE HOLY CROSS, MEGHALAYA

ITA 81/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

delay is hereby condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication, along with the main appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. Both these appeals arise from orders u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 18.02.2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (hereafter “the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A).” 2.1 The facts

AMAR CHAND GANGWAL,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5

21
Limitation/Time-bar21
Section 10(26)19
Disallowance13
ITA 144/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Guwahati
28 Oct 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Your Honour Under Section 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Challenging The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Said Act By The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Noida For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. I Respectfully Submit That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Prescribed Time Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Difficulties Beyond My Control. The Appeal Was Due To Be Filed On Or Before 28.02.2025. There Is Delay Of 95 Days Only In Filing Of The Appeal. 3. I Am Aged About 81 Years & I Am Not Conversant With E-Mail, Digital / Internet

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 270ASection 5

delay of 95 days which has been requested to be condoned as under: “1. The above appeal has been filed before your honour under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 17.12.2024 passed under section 250

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIGBOI, DIGBOI vs. ARUNACHAL TEA COMPANY, MARGHERITA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 6Section 7Section 80Section 801E

250 by the CIT(A) was passed : 28/03/2024 (ii) Date of submission of appeal scrutiny report from this office : 14/05/2024 (iii) Date of limitation for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT : 27/05/2024 I.T.A. No.: 133/GTY/2024 C.O. No.: 2/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Arunachal Tea Company. Therefore, it is requested of your good office to condone the delay

ARECA GLOBAL ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/GTY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The

Section 154Section 250

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 02.01.2025 is fundamentally flawed and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as it was issued prematurely without affording the Appellant a fair and reasonable opportunity to present its case. The Appellant had specifically mentioned in Form No. 35 that the explanation for the delay would be provided

SUMAN AHMED,GAURIPUR vs. ITO, WARD- DHUBRI, DHUBRI

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

ITA 45/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kushal SoniFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Sekar Das
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.NFAC but with a delay of 98 days. The ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Suman Ahmed 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record placed

PAWAN COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI ASSAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT for short hereafter] expired on 17.05.2024. There is therefore a delay of about 211 (two hundred eleven) days or more till date in submitting the appeal before the said learned Tribunal.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order under Section 250

MEGHALAYA CO-OP. APEX BANK LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

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

ITA 43/GTY/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati09 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Meghalaya Co-Op. Apex Assistant Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle - Shillong Vs. M. G. Road, Shillong- 793001 (Pan: Aaam8227G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarathi Choudhury, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 246ASection 250

condonation prayer for delay of 522 days while appeal filed u/s. 246A on 22.05.2018. Subsequently, same was rejected vide order dated 28.11.2018. While on perusal of the impugned order it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) without giving any consideration to the merit of the case dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to delay in filing the appeal

D P SCHOOL SOCIETY,NAGALAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JURISDICTION WARD TWO(THREE)

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The First Appellate Authority. Before The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), The Assessee Gave The Reasons For Said Delay As Under:

Section 11Section 12ASection 249(3)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) dated 27.03.2025, passed by Ld. Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),1, Delhi (hereafter “the Addl./JCIT(A]. 1.1 In this case, there was apparently a delay of 969 days in the filing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), the assessee

RAJULHOUBIENUO ANGAMI,NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal Assailing The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. Cit(A)"]. That The Due Date For Filing The Appeal Was 24Th August, 2024. However, There Has Been An Unintentional Delay Of 166 Days (Upto 13Th February, 2025), In Filing The Present Appeal, For Which The Appellant, With Utmost Humility, Seeks The Indulgence Of This Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Said Delay On The Grounds Set Forth Herein. 2. It Is Submitted That The Mr. Shivendu Maharaj Is The Accountant Of The Appellant Who Looks After The Tax Portal & Email Updates. The Accountant Also Forwards The Needful To The Chartered Accountant, Mr. Ajit Jain, To Take Necessary Action In Response To Any Notice That Is Received.

Section 10(26)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. I.T.A. No. 26/GTY/2025 Rajulhoubienuo Angami 2. The present appeal emanates from the order under Section 250

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed and questions Nos

ITA 159/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble

Section 250

Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 11.03.2025. 1.1 In this appeal, there is a delay of 166 days, which has been requested to be condoned

SPECIAL JUDGE ASSAM GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-TDS2, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 35/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15. Page 1 of 3 ITA No. 35-36 / GTY / 2025 Special Judge Assam-Vs- The ITO, TDS-2 AY: 2014-15 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Centralized Processing Centre

SPECIAL JUDGE ASSAM GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-TDS2, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 36/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15. Page 1 of 3 ITA No. 35-36 / GTY / 2025 Special Judge Assam-Vs- The ITO, TDS-2 AY: 2014-15 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Centralized Processing Centre

SHIWAJI PD. JAISWAL,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 47/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: "Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)] dated 11.12.2024, DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1071104128(1) challenging the appellate order for not condoning the delay of 1862 days and not deciding the issue on merits

KRIPA RANJAN DEBBARMA,AGARTALA vs. ITO, WARD - 1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Your Honour Against The Rejection Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed On 25.11.2024 & In The Matter Have E-Filed The Appeal In Form 35 Online With Grounds Of Appeal On 16.05.2025 & The Appeal Fee Rs. 10,000 Is Also Paid. However The Above Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 105 Days As The Appeal Was Supposed To Be Filed By 60 Days From The Date Of Order Ie. 25.11.2024 But Filed On 16.05.2025. Sir, I Am Not Able To Attend To My Regular Duties & Tasks. I Am 72 Years & Am Suffering From Depression & Various Age Related Issues. I Am Under Medical

Section 249(3)Section 250

condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 25.11.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 In this case, the main grievance of the assessee

TORSA MACHINES LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Him.

Section 144B(7)(ii)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 22.02.2025. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has passed an order dated 25.03.2022 through which an addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- has been made under Section

KEERTI FLOUR MILLS,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3) GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80I

Section 250 of the I.T.A. Nos. 99 & 100/GTY/2025 Keerti Flour Mills Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”). For the sake of convenience both these appeals are being dealt with through a single order. 1.2 Right at the outset, the Ld. AR clearly mentioned that for both the years the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay

KEERTI FLOUR MILLS,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80I

Section 250 of the I.T.A. Nos. 99 & 100/GTY/2025 Keerti Flour Mills Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”). For the sake of convenience both these appeals are being dealt with through a single order. 1.2 Right at the outset, the Ld. AR clearly mentioned that for both the years the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay

SRI PICKLU PAUL,KARIMGANJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2014-15 dated 15.02.2018, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T.A. No.: 195/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Picklu Paul. Act, dated 30.12.2016. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance

HARI NARAYAN BORKATAKY,TINSUKIA vs. ITO WARD - 1, TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 263 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Date Of The Order Passing The Appeal Order Is 14/05/2025. Being Aggrieved By The Order, The Appellant Wanted To Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Due To Be Filed On Or Before 31Th July 2025. However, Due To Unavoidable Circumstances, The Appeal Was Filed Only On 9Th October, 2025 With A Delay Of 70 Days.

Section 144BSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 70 days which has been requested to be condoned as under: “The appellant has filed an appeal in Form 36 before the Hon'ble Bench against the order passed under Section 250

HARI NARAYAN BORKATAKY,TINSUKIA vs. ITO WARD - 1, TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 263 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Date Of The Order Passing The Appeal Order Is 14/05/2025. Being Aggrieved By The Order, The Appellant Wanted To Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Due To Be Filed On Or Before 31Th July 2025. However, Due To Unavoidable Circumstances, The Appeal Was Filed Only On 9Th October, 2025 With A Delay Of 70 Days.

Section 144BSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 70 days which has been requested to be condoned as under: “The appellant has filed an appeal in Form 36 before the Hon'ble Bench against the order passed under Section 250