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.

76 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,199Chennai3,159Delhi2,570Kolkata1,661Pune1,517Bangalore1,435Ahmedabad1,041Hyderabad1,039Jaipur771Patna672Surat512Chandigarh467Nagpur405Raipur396Indore378Visakhapatnam351Lucknow309Cochin308Amritsar296Karnataka274Rajkot260Cuttack193Panaji150Agra104Dehradun85Guwahati76Calcutta75Jodhpur61SC58Ranchi47Telangana44Allahabad41Jabalpur40Varanasi31Orissa10Andhra Pradesh9Rajasthan9Kerala7Punjab & Haryana5Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 25076Addition to Income42Section 14434Section 734Condonation of Delay31Section 153A28Section 271(1)(c)27Section 80I24Section 10(26)

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

Section 119(2)(b) by which the powers delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing Form 10B beyond 365 days up to 3 years from the assessment year 2018-19 or for subsequent year. Applying the said circular the learned Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT (Appeals

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 144/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 76 · Page 1 of 4

22
Section 1422
Penalty19
Limitation/Time-bar18
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

section 5 of the Limitation Act. Condoning the delay always advances cause of justice and afford opportunity to parties to contest the case on merits whereas; not condoning the delay results in denial of justice and deprive them of an opportunity. By this expression, we do not want to say that in every case delay should always be condoned

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

8 hereinabove are true to my knowledge, belief and information.” I.T.A. Nos. 297-300/GTY/2025 Shibu Roy 1.3 In all these cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on several authorities and has held that the grounds seeking condonation of delay were not sufficient enough to be considered for relief as per the provisions of section

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

8 hereinabove are true to my knowledge, belief and information.” I.T.A. Nos. 297-300/GTY/2025 Shibu Roy 1.3 In all these cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on several authorities and has held that the grounds seeking condonation of delay were not sufficient enough to be considered for relief as per the provisions of section

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

8 hereinabove are true to my knowledge, belief and information.” I.T.A. Nos. 297-300/GTY/2025 Shibu Roy 1.3 In all these cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on several authorities and has held that the grounds seeking condonation of delay were not sufficient enough to be considered for relief as per the provisions of section

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

8 hereinabove are true to my knowledge, belief and information.” I.T.A. Nos. 297-300/GTY/2025 Shibu Roy 1.3 In all these cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on several authorities and has held that the grounds seeking condonation of delay were not sufficient enough to be considered for relief as per the provisions of section

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

delay in filing the Cross objection is also condoned and the CO is also admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income seeking deduction under section 80-IE of the Act, which was denied by the CPC as the required audit report on Form No. 10CCB was not filed along

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 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 8. In the light of above discussion and applying the principles enunciated in the above judgments, we are of the firm opinion that delay of 98 days in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) deserves to be condoned

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

condoned and requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be uphold. 7. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and order of authorities below. We noted that the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 30.07.2019, where there is a disallowance of Rs. 32,67,767/- and demand

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

8. It is a well-settled principle of law that procedural technicalities should not impede the dispensation of substantive justice. Further, the Hon'ble Courts have consistently taken liberal and pragmatic approach in condoning the delays, where, sufficient cause has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Hon'ble Court(s)/Tribunal. 9. In view of the foregoing circumstances

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

section 234E, contending that it is ultra vires and illegal. 3. The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 31.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee citing the reason that appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months and there was lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed

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

section 234E, contending that it is ultra vires and illegal. 3. The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 31.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee citing the reason that appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months and there was lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed

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

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

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

condone the delay by admitting the appeals for adjudication. We shall first take up IT(SS)A 1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11. IT(SS)A 1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 03. First, we would take up ITA(SS)A No.1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised legal issue challenging the jurisdiction

S.B. BHATTACHARJEE MEMORIAL TRUST FOR CHILDREN EDUCATION ,DIGBOI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/GTY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234C

8. For that the ld. Addl. CIT(A) Ought to have hold that the ld. A0 was not justified in arbitrarily determining total income of the appellant at Rs. I.T.A. Nos.: 245/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 S.B. Bhattacharjee Memorial Trust for Children Education. 87,13,857/- in place of returned income of Rs. NIL without assigning any reason, whatsoever

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

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) of the Act, which

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) of the Act, which

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 210/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek BansalFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILAKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 207/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek BansalFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee