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.

157 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad234Mumbai180Hyderabad157Chennai149Delhi133Jaipur117Kolkata117Pune113Bangalore109Lucknow87Surat81Visakhapatnam66Patna60Chandigarh55Rajkot46Indore41Amritsar37Cochin30Raipur29Agra22Guwahati21Jabalpur17Nagpur16Allahabad12Dehradun9Cuttack9Jodhpur7Panaji7Varanasi4Ranchi4SC2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69A138Section 14885Addition to Income79Section 14778Section 14471Cash Deposit57Section 142(1)52Condonation of Delay42Demonetization

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

section 69A of the Act and determined her income at Rs.27,94,010/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 01 year and 07 months, therefore, the CIT(A) declined to condone

Showing 1–20 of 157 · Page 1 of 8

...
35
Unexplained Money35
Limitation/Time-bar33
Section 271A20

MALIREDDI SRINATH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HDYERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1721/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69A

Section 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal on 22.07.2025 against the assessment order dated 01.12.2023 with a delay of more than 18 months. The assessee filed a petition for condonation

STAR ORGANIC FOODS INC,NELLORE vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 715/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, T Ram PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5Section 69A

section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the delay in filing of the 5 ITA.No.715/Hyd./2025 appeal should not be condoned. The learned DR further submitted that, the assessee is a non-complaint to all proceedings, which is evident from the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) where the assessee had not filed

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1140/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 1059 days, therefore

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1126/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 1059 days, therefore

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1139/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 1059 days, therefore

KOLAPARTHY SUVARNA LAKSHMI,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/HYD/2023[A.Y.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nellore. Central Circle – 1, Nellore. Pan : Agupk4977A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

delay is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and income from other sources. Assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 22.12.2018 admitting total income of Rs.47,91,890/-. The return of income

VISHAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 711/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vishal Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aympj0559M. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 30.08.2019 admitting total income of Rs.13,51,680/-. The Investigating Team found cash of Rs.11,83,000/- in possession of assessee

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 282/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 281/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 280/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 286/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 285/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 284/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

BABUGARI KAREEM BASHA,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are dismissed mutatis mutandis for both the A

ITA 1449/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 249(3)Section 69A

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and pertain to the assessment years 2014-15 and 2017-18. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from ITA 1448/H/2025

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SABBINENI SURENDRA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

ITA 599/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sabbineni Surendra, Income Tax, No. 512/R, Road No.29, Central Circle-2(2), Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqps 3461 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 69Section 69A

condoned the delay by following the decision of the ITAT in the case of 4 M/s. AKR Constructions Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No.572/Hyd/2015) dated 30/07/2015. Thereafter, CIT(A) proceeded to consider the assessee’s grounds on the merits of the addition made u/s 69 of the Act and granted partial relief to the assessee. Against the relief granted

ARCOT AFSAR BEGUM,TADIPATRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

ITA 1134/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Prescribed Period. It Was Contended That The Delay Is Neither Willful Nor Deliberate But Has Occurred On Account Of Genuine & Bona Fide Reasons. Accordingly, He Prayed For Condonation Of The Delay In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 3. Per Contra, The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr") Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To The Prayer Of The Assessee. 4. We Have Carefully Considered The Submissions Of Both Sides & Perused The Condonation Petition Along With The Affidavit Placed On Record. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Has Shown A Reasonable & Bona Fide Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. It Is Well Settled That When Substantial Justice & Technical Considerations Are Pitted Against Each Other, The Cause Of Substantial Justice Deserves To Be Preferred. In View Of The Above Facts & Circumstances & There Being No Serious Objection From The Revenue, We Condone The Delay Of 95 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 5. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 115BSection 147Section 44ASection 69A

condone the delay of 95 days in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1134/Hyd/2025 | 3 1. Erroneous Invocation of Section 69A

PULLARAO PERUGU,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1132/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 271A

Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Once again, the assessee has filed an appeal through his legal heir before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 286 days, and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without condoning

SOWJANYA BASI REDDY,PRODDATUR, A.P. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PRODDATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 269SSection 69A

condone the delay of 02 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 13.12.2017 admitting total income of Rs.3,25,260/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,51,450/-. The case

TIRUPATHI ARSAM,MANCHERIAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANCHERIAL

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

ITA 1531/HYD/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1531/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Tirupathi Arsam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mancherial Ward-1 Pan:Agypa4706B Mancherial (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Suresh A, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Suresh A, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 69A

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 8 ITA No 1531 of 2025 Tirupati Arsam 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income