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.

54 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 226(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka175Chennai132Delhi99Mumbai99Hyderabad54Pune52Raipur47Jaipur46Bangalore44Ahmedabad36Kolkata34Indore18Guwahati16Surat16Lucknow14Jodhpur13Cuttack12Visakhapatnam7Nagpur7SC6Panaji6Chandigarh4Telangana4Cochin4Rajkot4Rajasthan3Calcutta2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I88Section 153A80Section 143(3)35Addition to Income34Search & Seizure28Section 13227Deduction23Penalty17Section 143(2)

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

226 & 136 of constitution in respect of condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Demi Realtors : This is not applicable to the facts of the case. 3. Western Union Financial Services Inc : - SC Civil Appeal No.4274 of 2023. Facts – Original appeals filed in time and delay considered in the respective appeals after removing the defects. Demi Realtors : delay

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

15
Section 139(1)14
Disallowance13
Section 4012

KUMUD BAJAJ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 782/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

3) of the Income tax act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of “sufficient cause” as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation act. Hence the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

RAHUL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1266/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Rahul Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aifpa2046P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 226(3)Section 234BSection 68

condoned under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld.AR submitted that the appellant was unaware of the dismissal of the appeal by the LD.CIT(A) and came to know about it only when the banker informed him of the recovery proceedings initiated under Section 226(3) of the Act. The ld.AR contended that the delay

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

condone the delay in the filing of the appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 01.01.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.39,84,93,420/-. A search and seizure operation

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 239/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

3) of section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

3) of section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 240/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

3) of section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period

HRM INTERIORS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 295/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 226(3)Section 44A

section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 28.01.2025. Upon coming to know of the same, the assessee immediately filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended that there was no deliberate or mala fide intention on the part of the assessee to delay the filing of the appeal. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 604/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

3) of section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 605/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

3) of section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 606/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

3) of section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 603/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

3) of section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1732/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 226(3)Section 271(1)(c)

3 appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the President of the assessee’s Trust. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a dispute among the Executive Committee Members of the Assessee Trust and consequentially a long-drawn court litigation was going on from

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1730/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 226(3)Section 271(1)(c)

3 appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the President of the assessee’s Trust. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a dispute among the Executive Committee Members of the Assessee Trust and consequentially a long-drawn court litigation was going on from

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1731/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 226(3)Section 271(1)(c)

3 appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the President of the assessee’s Trust. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a dispute among the Executive Committee Members of the Assessee Trust and consequentially a long-drawn court litigation was going on from

GAYATRI ENERGY VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 467/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas & CA Swapnil DeshukhFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

condone the delay of 321 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee- company is engaged in the business of development, construction and operation of power generation projects, filed it’s return of income for the assessment year 2018- 2019 on 16.08.2019 declaring Rs.NIL

DATAFORMIX ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1421/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dataformix Enterprise V Ito,Ward-17(1) Solutions Private Limited S. Signature Towers 1-33-47, Rtc Colony, Kondapur Gunrock, Tirumalgiri Hyderabad-500 004 Secunderabad-500 0074

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy

3 ITA.No.1421/Hyd/2019 4. We have heard the rival contention the parties and perused the material available on record . In this connection, the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of the said delay wherein, it was, inter-alia, affirmed that due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee, as the employees of the assessee have left the project

SUBHASH HANUMANTHAPPA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1325/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), and such appeal has been on 19-02-2020. In Form No. 35 filed by the assessee, it was stated that the date of service of the order was on 08-02-2020. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices fixing the case for hearing. However, there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 60 days without any petition for cond

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 226(3)

Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, the A.O. passed order u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 21-11-2019, and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.60,09,200/- by making an addition of Rs. 50,96,500/- towards deposits made by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE vs. BADRI MANJULA , NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 780/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 45(1)

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.780/HYD/2020 for AY 2009-10 ( by Revenue) ITA NO.126/HYD/2021 for AY 2009-10 (by Assessee) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T.Act, the AO observed that

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 126/HYD/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 45(1)

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.780/HYD/2020 for AY 2009-10 ( by Revenue) ITA NO.126/HYD/2021 for AY 2009-10 (by Assessee) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T.Act, the AO observed that