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.

184 results for “condonation of delay”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,436Mumbai1,386Delhi950Pune751Kolkata586Ahmedabad526Jaipur450Bangalore402Hyderabad367Chandigarh243Surat241Cochin241Indore184Karnataka175Raipur154Lucknow154Nagpur153Visakhapatnam141Cuttack132Rajkot118Amritsar94Patna75Agra63Calcutta54Guwahati52Panaji31Ranchi31Allahabad30Dehradun29SC27Jabalpur25Jodhpur20Varanasi12Telangana12Orissa4Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Penalty62Condonation of Delay55Section 14448Section 143(3)47Addition to Income43Section 272A(2)(k)42Section 14741Section 25036Section 142(1)

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 713/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)Section 4Section 5

condone the delay of 106 days and admit the appeal and allow the appeal proceeded with for adjudication. 6. Now we shall deal with regular grounds of appeal of the assessee which reads as us under:- 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-II Indore has erred in confirming penalty

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

Showing 1–20 of 184 · Page 1 of 10

...
31
Section 271(1)(c)31
Section 2830
Limitation/Time-bar23

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 247/IND/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty matters. Thus, there is no lethargy or negligence on the part of assessee in making delay in filing present appeals. Relying upon decisions in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmla Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT (2017) 251 Taxmann 270 (Bombay HC) and Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 248/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty matters. Thus, there is no lethargy or negligence on the part of assessee in making delay in filing present appeals. Relying upon decisions in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmla Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT (2017) 251 Taxmann 270 (Bombay HC) and Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 284/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249

penalty notices were furnished to him, he came to realize that no appropriate response was fled during the assessment proceedings and no appeal was filed against the same. Therefore, the appellant craves to request the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 647/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

delay is found to be sufficient and condonable then the Ld. CIT (A) may proceed to decide the first appeal basis merit as he/she deems fit and proper. 4.4 In view of the premises drawn up by us we set aside the “impugned order” & remand the case back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) with directions as aforesaid

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO , BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 648/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

delay is found to be sufficient and condonable then the Ld. CIT (A) may proceed to decide the first appeal basis merit as he/she deems fit and proper. 4.4 In view of the premises drawn up by us we set aside the “impugned order” & remand the case back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) with directions as aforesaid

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

penalty order” has been dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the same (560 days delay). The condonation of delay

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 79/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)Section 69

penalty order is invalid, unjustified and liable to be quashed. (Tax Effect :20,28,200/-) 2. That the Ld CIT(A) was unjustified in not condoning the delay

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 80/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)Section 69

penalty order is invalid, unjustified and liable to be quashed. (Tax Effect :20,28,200/-) 2. That the Ld CIT(A) was unjustified in not condoning the delay

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 78/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)Section 69

penalty order is invalid, unjustified and liable to be quashed. (Tax Effect :20,28,200/-) 2. That the Ld CIT(A) was unjustified in not condoning the delay

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

ITA 1094/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 60

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also proposed in SCN. In response thereto AR of the assessee furnished reply on 28.02.2002 at final stage of assessment proceedings which examined and found not convincing. The relevant portion of reply is reproduced herewith. Para-4 of reply dated 28.12.2022 During the financial year 2011-12 assessee has purchase

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 791/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay as delay involved being two to three years as explained supra 1.1. Since, the appellant failed to furnish any justifiable submission/proofs etc. to explain such an inordinate delay in filing these appeals against this assessment order and related penalty

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 790/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay as delay involved being two to three years as explained supra 1.1. Since, the appellant failed to furnish any justifiable submission/proofs etc. to explain such an inordinate delay in filing these appeals against this assessment order and related penalty

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

ITA 549/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 70

penalty or the date on which intimation of order sought to be appeal against is served. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the limitation shall be counted only from the date of service of the order passed u/s 154 of the Act. He has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) be condoned

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 150/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

delay if any be condoned with cost. Further the assessee company be directed to cooperate with the department as even the “impugned assessment order” is u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. AR also pleaded that the first appellate order is not meritorious in nature and prayed for remand so that order on merit could be passed. 3.2 In respect

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 732/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 144Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order, the appellant failed to file any appeal against the assessment order. The appeal against assessment order was filed only on 03.07.2023 with a brief reason for condonation of delay

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 538/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 144Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order, the appellant failed to file any appeal against the assessment order. The appeal against assessment order was filed only on 03.07.2023 with a brief reason for condonation of delay

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271E

condonation of delay which is ITANo.229/Ind/2023 M/s Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. supported by the affidavit of director of the assessee company. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the impugned order was passed by the assesse during the Covid-19 pandemic period and therefore, out of the total delay of 737 days the delay

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

condonation-application supported by an affidavit according to which the reason of 12 days’ delay is the same as narrated for ‘persisting delay’ in ITA No. 290/Ind/2024 i.e. after receipt of penalty

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

condonation-application supported by an affidavit according to which the reason of 12 days’ delay is the same as narrated for ‘persisting delay’ in ITA No. 290/Ind/2024 i.e. after receipt of penalty