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.

27 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai559 Delhi408 Chennai296 Kolkata278 Ahmedabad270 Jaipur221 Bangalore189 Pune179 Surat131 Hyderabad130 Karnataka126 Chandigarh89 Indore86 Cochin72 Lucknow55 Nagpur54 Rajkot48 Calcutta43 Cuttack39 Visakhapatnam37 Guwahati27 Patna27 Agra26 Ranchi24 Amritsar22 Raipur18 Panaji17 Jabalpur12 SC11 Allahabad10 Dehradun7 Jodhpur5 Varanasi3 Telangana2 Punjab & Haryana2 Andhra Pradesh1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)36 Section 25027 Section 153A20 Section 14416 Section 10(26)15 Section 14712 Penalty12 Addition to Income11 Section 2748

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

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

ITA 418/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of particulars of income by not condoning the delay

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

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

ITA 419/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of particulars of income by not condoning the delay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. RINU SINGH L/R OF JOY PRAKASH SINGH , TINSUKIA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 432/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2014-15 Acit, Circle-Tinsukia Vs. Renu Singh The Legal Heir Of Late Jai Prakash Singh Jasoda Talkies Compound, Digboi-786171 Pan/Gir No. : Ahdps9100M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the impugned 49 days’ delay in filing of the appeal. The case is therefore taken up for adjudication on merits. Renu Singh Assessment Year:2014-15 3. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action imposing the penalty in issue of ₹61,00,246/- u/s 271(1)(c

KENNETH BLAH,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 25Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

delay is condoned only in the interest of natural justice and the matter is taken up for adjudication as hereunder. 4 Kenneth Blah The Grounds of appeal, the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the assessee and the case laws adduced have been carefully considered. The facts of the case are that the assessee sold immovable property

SANDEEP JALAN,GUWAHATI vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 157/GTY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Dated 08.12.2023, Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Period Of Delay: There Is A Delay Of 494 Days In Filing The Said Appeal

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 08.12.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR , SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 313/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

MOHAMMED HELALUDDIN AHMED,DANKIGAON, GOPAL NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD, NAGAON

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 330/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay of 47 days. In the same breath, we restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT (A) to decide the appeal on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In respect of ITA No. 330/GTY/25 which is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c

MOHAMMED HELALUDDIN AHMED,HOJAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD, NAGAON

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 329/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay of 47 days. In the same breath, we restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT (A) to decide the appeal on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In respect of ITA No. 330/GTY/25 which is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the Ld. AO. (d) ITA No. 300/GTY/2025 The Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order dated 07.08.2025 against the order under Section 147 read with section 144 of the Act passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 1.1 In all these 4 appeals, the common ground is that there was delay in filing

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the Ld. AO. (d) ITA No. 300/GTY/2025 The Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order dated 07.08.2025 against the order under Section 147 read with section 144 of the Act passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 1.1 In all these 4 appeals, the common ground is that there was delay in filing

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the Ld. AO. (d) ITA No. 300/GTY/2025 The Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order dated 07.08.2025 against the order under Section 147 read with section 144 of the Act passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 1.1 In all these 4 appeals, the common ground is that there was delay in filing

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the Ld. AO. (d) ITA No. 300/GTY/2025 The Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order dated 07.08.2025 against the order under Section 147 read with section 144 of the Act passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 1.1 In all these 4 appeals, the common ground is that there was delay in filing

DEBEN THAOSEN,HAFLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 247/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Deben Thaosen V/S. Income Tax Officer Sengya Sombudhan Raji Ward-1, Silchar Room Sarkari Bagan, Halflong, No.21 Aayakar N.C. Hills, Assam Bhawan, Pwd Road, [Pan No.Aedpt 9417 R] Silchar-788001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri M.C Omi Ningshen, Jcit Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-12-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-12-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Bemch:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Shillong’S Order Dated 25.06.2018 Passed In Case No.Cit(A)/Shillolng/10040/2017-18 Involving Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. Heard Learned Departmental Representative. 2. For The Reasons Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition / Affidavit Dated 15.04.2019 Coupled With His Medical History & On Account Of The Revenue’S No Objection, We Condone The Impugned Seventeen Days Delay In Filing Of The Taxpayer’S Appeal. The Same Is Now Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits.

Section 10(26)Section 271(1)(c)

condone the impugned seventeen days delay in filing of the taxpayer’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. ITA No.247/Gau/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deben Thaosen Vs. ITO Wd-1, Silchar . Page 2 3. It transpires during the course of hearing and with the able assistance of learned departmental representative that both the lower authorities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred