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.

16 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai625Mumbai514Delhi458Kolkata314Bangalore261Hyderabad185Ahmedabad180Jaipur169Pune146Karnataka144Chandigarh128Nagpur84Lucknow62Surat54Indore52Amritsar49Calcutta48Rajkot37Panaji37Visakhapatnam36Cochin34Raipur26Patna19SC17Guwahati16Cuttack15Varanasi13Telangana12Jabalpur12Allahabad8Dehradun6Jodhpur6Agra5Punjab & Haryana2Orissa2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153A20Section 25017Section 271(1)(c)14Addition to Income12Section 44A8Section 143(3)6Section 139(1)6Section 1486Section 69A

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

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

6
Penalty6
Disallowance6
Depreciation5
ITA 195/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Guwahati
28 Jan 2025
AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shillong is not justified in dismissing the grounds taken by the Appellant before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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 the income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal I.T.A. No. 159/GTY/2025 Assam Power Distribution Company Limited Centre(NFAC), Delhi was communicated on 11/03/2025. Consequently, the due date for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was on or before. However, the appeal

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

56,525/- Initially, the assessee made disclosure before the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1(2), Guwahati on 11/12/2019 and thereafter revised the same and also incorporated the same in the return filed under Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee’s income

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 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

56,525/- Initially, the assessee made disclosure before the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1(2), Guwahati on 11/12/2019 and thereafter revised the same and also incorporated the same in the return filed under Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee’s income

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

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

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

DEBASHISH BISWAS (DECEASED),TEZPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 14/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati against the ex-parte Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi U/s.250 without providing actual and sufficient opportunity of hearing. This is true and correct.

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44A

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal emanates from the order under Section 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 15.10.2024. 2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO passed

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

ITA 275/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

56 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on account of delay without discussing the merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

ITA 274/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

56 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on account of delay without discussing the merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal

SHAUQUAT ALAM,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 57/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohit BhatiFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 6. We observe that, the assessment order was under section 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 56

SHAUQUAT ALAM,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 56/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohit BhatiFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 6. We observe that, the assessment order was under section 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 56

SOMEN BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA ASSAM

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

ITA 181/GTY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Somen Bhattacharjee Ward-1, Tinsukia Assam B/3/11 Northen Park Bansdroni, Sector-3, Tinsukia, Assam Vs. Kolkata-700070, West Bengal Pin-786125 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acapb0292M Assessee By : Shri Prasanjit Das, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Prasanjit Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 56(2)(x)

delay is for Bonafide and genuine reasons and therefore, we condone the same. Somen Bhattacharjee; A.Y. 2018-19 03. We note that the assessment order has been framed by the National e-assessment center, Delhi in which an addition of ₹31,81,000/-was made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act in respect of difference between the purchase consideration