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.

167 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 35clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai897Chennai872Delhi839Kolkata468Bangalore418Ahmedabad357Pune356Hyderabad333Jaipur312Raipur241Chandigarh193Indore167Karnataka148Visakhapatnam146Surat133Amritsar125Nagpur94Cochin90Lucknow69Cuttack59Rajkot48Calcutta44Agra33Patna30SC30Jodhpur27Panaji26Guwahati26Allahabad19Telangana18Varanasi15Jabalpur13Dehradun7Rajasthan5Orissa5Kerala3Ranchi3Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay53Section 14750Addition to Income45Section 143(3)42Section 25033Section 253(5)31Section 14829Section 142(1)26Section 144

M/S NEO SACK LTD. vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

ITA 263/IND/2008[05-Apr]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 43BSection 5

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation but it depends on the discretion of the Court. The Court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts and not length of delay. 10. In view of the above legal position

M/S NEO SACK LTD vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

ITA 262/IND/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Showing 1–20 of 167 · Page 1 of 9

...
25
Section 26325
Penalty25
Disallowance24
Section 43BSection 5

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation but it depends on the discretion of the Court. The Court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts and not length of delay. 10. In view of the above legal position

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)

35 years Page 7 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 which shows that the counsel is not a novice, he is a well experience professional. Referring to Ld. AR’s assertion, he submitted that the previous counsel was regularly handling assessee’s matters uptill the year 2020. In such a situation

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

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)

35 years Page 7 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 which shows that the counsel is not a novice, he is a well experience professional. Referring to Ld. AR’s assertion, he submitted that the previous counsel was regularly handling assessee’s matters uptill the year 2020. In such a situation

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

35, filed a letter seeking condonation of delay which reads as follows" "It is pleaded that the authorised representative of the appellant failed to file an appeal against the assessment order passed by the learned AO within the time limit prescribed under section

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

condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the CIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant is not entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. xxxxxxxxxxxxx Page 3 of 10 ABDE

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

condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the CIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant is not entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. xxxxxxxxxxxxx Page 3 of 10 ABDE

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

35 the appellant has stated as under- "There is a delay in filing the appeal due to delay in gathering the necessary documents. Therefore it is requested to kindly condone the delay and accept the appeal” 10. It is noted that the appellant is an AOP and its books of accounts were audited. Then it is not clear what other

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

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

Section 249(2)Section 69A

35 the appellant has stated as under- "There is a delay in filing the appeal due to delay in gathering the necessary documents. Therefore it is requested to kindly condone the delay and accept the appeal” 10. It is noted that the appellant is an AOP and its books of accounts were audited. Then it is not clear what other

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

35 stating "That the accountant of the assessee was not available. "The reason for delay in filing of appeal given by the assessee is not at all sufficient and reasonable cause and the illness of the accountant is not a sufficient & reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal. The appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented

GORELAL PARMAR,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 71/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Gorelal Parmar, Ito 2(5), 8, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Arvind Vihar, Vs. Baghugliya, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkxpp3183R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

35, has been stated to be 01/04/2022 and the appeal memo is not accompanied with any petition seeking condonation of delay in preferring the impugned appeal. As per the provisions of Sec. 249 (2), an appeal before the CIT(A) is to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of notice of demand. Further, the delay may be condoned

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. PCIT (1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 511/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(1)Section 263

35 ) shailendrasolanki132@gmail.com . Subsequently, against the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Act dated 30th November, 2023, the second appeal before the tribunal against such order has been filed in form 36 by I.T.A. No.511/Ind/2024 7 Assessment Year: 2014-15 the assessee , through his Ld. AR , under same email id shailendrasolanki132@gmail.com , on 12th December

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 185/IND/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

For Appellant: Shri Satiksh Solanki, DRFor Respondent: 29.05.2018
Section 119(1)(b)Section 119(2)(b)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Instruction No. 13/2006 would not override these provisions. From a bare reading of the instructions, it is evident that the Instruction is related to condonation of delay in respect of refund due. This instruction is issued with an objective to mitigate the hardship to the assessee. Para 7 of the Instruction

AMIT VYAS,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN , UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 510/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

35. Thus, the appellant was very much aware about the assessment order since 30.01.2018. The appellant is supposed to explain a valid reason for delay so that this office could have considered condoning the delay. However, the reason provided by the appellant is not sufficient to condone the delay of 669 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Section 270AA of the Act completely by the assessee. The Ld. DR has placed on reliance on Kerala High Court judgment reported in (2024) 158 taxmann.com 209 (Kerala) – IBS Software (P) Ltd v/s UOI. Photo copy of judgment cited by Ld. AR of Chennai Bench of ITAT and Jodhpur Bench of ITAT were furnished under a compilation from page

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

section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income and merely for verification of source of cash deposits in the bank account. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246(1)(a)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 40A(7)Section 43B

condoned the delay of 184 days and adjudicated the issue on merit. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the Asstt.year 2018-19 on 7.3.2019 declaring total taxable income of Rs.2,88,40,270/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

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)

35 and even could not adduce any such submissions/condonation plea as needed to explain the inordinate delay involved in filing these two appeals as per law. Accordingly, the appellant appeals apparently are not having a reasonable case to condone the delay as there exists clear and apparent negligence on the part of the appellant in filing these two appeals with

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)

35 and even could not adduce any such submissions/condonation plea as needed to explain the inordinate delay involved in filing these two appeals as per law. Accordingly, the appellant appeals apparently are not having a reasonable case to condone the delay as there exists clear and apparent negligence on the part of the appellant in filing these two appeals with

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)

35. The assessee further claims that when the penalty-appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) vide a subsequent order dated 24.01.2024, the assessee approached earlier counsel and trusted that the counsel shall take an appropriate measure in the matters but the earlier counsel still did not take suitable action which came to assessee’s notice subsequently when recovery proceedings were