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.

79 results for “condonation of delay”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai921Mumbai782Delhi709Kolkata433Pune426Ahmedabad387Bangalore241Jaipur192Hyderabad171Surat121Chandigarh110Visakhapatnam87Rajkot82Indore79Raipur73Patna67Lucknow66Nagpur52Agra52Amritsar38Cuttack31Calcutta26Guwahati23Cochin19Jodhpur18Dehradun14Panaji14Jabalpur11Karnataka10Varanasi9Ranchi6SC6Orissa3Allahabad3Himachal Pradesh2Telangana1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 26351Condonation of Delay47Addition to Income44Section 14739Section 14832Section 14419Limitation/Time-bar18Section 143(3)17Section 69

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 131/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 249(2)Section 69A

condoned because appellant failed to establish sufficient cause, the appeal is not admitted and rejected accordingly. It is also observed that the case based on records available, statement facts, Assessment order and submission made by the appellant, appears weak on merits also. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5.1 Thus, it is clear that

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Showing 1–20 of 79 · Page 1 of 4

17
Deduction17
Cash Deposit16
Reopening of Assessment15

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

Section 249(2)Section 69A

condoned because appellant failed to establish sufficient cause, the appeal is not admitted and rejected accordingly. It is also observed that the case based on records available, statement facts, Assessment order and submission made by the appellant, appears weak on merits also. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5.1 Thus, it is clear that

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order as passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 by invoking

THE DY CIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPASL vs. M/S R.K.GUPTA & ENGINEERS P LTD, 2009-10

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 325/IND/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 47Section 80I

assessment can be reopened on the basis of change of opinion. A Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Marico Ltd. in Special Leave Peition (Civil) Diary No. 7367/2020 dated 01.06.2020 held as follows: Delay Condoned

SHRI ISLAM PATEL,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5 (5), INDORE

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

ITA 111/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Islam Patel Ito, 5(5) 13, Mayakhedi Jhalariya Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Dpcpp 7925 D Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 54BSection 54F

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds: “1. That, the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT-A is erroneous on the facts and in law. Page 2 of 5 SMC-Islam Patel Page 3 of 5 2. That, the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT-A, is contrary to the weight of evidence

SEEMA SINHA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

ITA 499/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

Section 147Section 148

delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may be decided on merits. He has also contended that reopening of the assessment

DILIP BUDHADEV,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA, MADHYA PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

ITA 307/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Indore16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 153CSection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253Section 69A

condonation of delay in filing of\nappeal more so when the appellant was having sufficient and\nreasonable cause for filing of appeal after due-date before the\nLd CIT(A).\n7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 420/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 154

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 423/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 154

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 421/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

Section 154

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 419/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 154

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 424/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 154

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 422/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 154

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

BHARAT SINGH CHAWDA,DEWAS vs. THE ITO-1 , DEWAS

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 234/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyania.Y. 2011-12

Section 148Section 2(14)

condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 2. The assessee has filed the concise grounds of the appeal as under: 3 Bharat Singh Chawda ITA No.234 of 2023 “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case: - 1. The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the order, which is bad- in-law, void ab-initio, barred

AMANULLAH,INDORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC, INDORE

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

ITA 240/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniamanullah Nfac 83/3, Juna Risala, Delhi Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apipa0680H Assessee By Shri Manish Dafria, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2024

Section 147

delay of 75 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: Page 2 of 8 ITANo.240/Ind/2024 Amanullah “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no legal basis available with the Ld. A.O. to make

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

ITA 533/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 253Section 271ASection 274(2)Section 288ASection 69

assessment and it is concluded that the\nassesee has nothing to explain regarding the nature and\nsource of the cash deposits and hence added to the total\nincome under sec. 69 of the IT Act. Further penalty\nproceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act are being initiated\nRajesh Kumar Rathore 3\nITA No. 533/Ind/2025\nseparately for unexplained cash deposits

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 501/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)

reopening u/s 147/148 with the reason that the assessee was failed to explain the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs.51,33,000/- in the saving bank account no. 12571000039933 of HDFC Bank, Br. M.P. Nagar, Zone II, Bhopal during the F.Y.2012-13. On perusal of bank statement, the cash credits and immediately withdrawals from such bank account did not have

DUGDH UTPADAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,BARWANI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, SENDHWA

ITA 760/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 147Section 253

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and taken up for final hearing. 2.2 That by way of an assessment order bearing Number ITBA/ AST/S/147/2022-23/1051360325(1) dated 27.03.2023 the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs.4,24,69,750/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order

KIRTI TRIPATHI,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(4), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 572/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF\nAPPEAL\nWith reference to above, I have to submit as under:\nI, Smt. Kirti Tripathi, wife of Shri Suman Kumar Tripathi, aged about\n58 years, residing at B-59, Shahpura, Bhopal-462046, do hereby solemnly\naffirm and declare on oath as under:\n1. That I am engaged in the business of trading in Salt

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 125/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as filed within limitation. 5. In the case of assessee the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 15.12.2018 at a total income of Rs.10