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.

27 results for “condonation of delay”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai2,180Mumbai2,146Delhi1,409Kolkata1,353Bangalore977Pune645Hyderabad620Ahmedabad538Jaipur391Cochin318Patna278Nagpur271Surat259Chandigarh217Indore212Lucknow192Karnataka191Raipur178Amritsar174Visakhapatnam167Rajkot137Cuttack134Calcutta75Panaji73Agra64Guwahati58Jodhpur38SC32Telangana29Jabalpur27Allahabad19Dehradun18Varanasi14Ranchi7Kerala4Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Rajasthan1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14726Addition to Income22Section 25020Penalty16Section 14415Condonation of Delay12Cash Deposit12Section 69A11Section 115B

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

delay should be condoned and appeal may please be considered on merits. 3. That the learned CIT Appeal as well as Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of the case in making / confirming Penalty of Rs.50000/-. The appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in not making compliance of notice

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 271(1)(c)10
Section 270A9
Section 1488

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

delay should be condoned and appeal may please be considered on merits. 3. That the learned CIT Appeal as well as Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of the case in making / confirming Penalty of Rs.50000/-. The appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in not making compliance of notice

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 194CSection 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 40

condone delay in filing of appeal of only one day and without issuing any notice of hearing under sec. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) under sec. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 26/07/2024 is contrary

SURYA KUMAR GUPTA,ITARSI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 1, ITARSI

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

ITA 135/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Gupta Jewellers, Sarafa Bazar Ward-1, Itarsi

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69

business premises of the assessee on 15.03.2018. During the course of survey, inventory of stocks amounting to Gold of Rs.1,35,685/- and Silver of Rs.13,80,784/- was found in excess, as compared to the books of accounts. The assessee offered an additional income of Rs. 15,16,430/- on this account. Notices under section 142(1) were issued

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 130/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. On merits, he submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,67,337/- deposited in bank was assessee’s business turnover; on which element of profit was a small portion of the total amount. He contended that only the profit element in the turnover

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 132/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. On merits, he submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,67,337/- deposited in bank was assessee’s business turnover; on which element of profit was a small portion of the total amount. He contended that only the profit element in the turnover

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 129/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. On merits, he submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,67,337/- deposited in bank was assessee’s business turnover; on which element of profit was a small portion of the total amount. He contended that only the profit element in the turnover

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 131/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. On merits, he submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,67,337/- deposited in bank was assessee’s business turnover; on which element of profit was a small portion of the total amount. He contended that only the profit element in the turnover

RISHABH KUMAR JAIN,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SAGAR

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

ITA 120/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 69

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration disclosing income of Rs.7,09,360/- which got invalidated. The assessee neither filed return of income against notice

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/JAB/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR & Sh. Shrawan Kumar
Section 115BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56Section 69A

condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal without considered the merits of case. 3. That the National Faceless Assessment Unit of Income Tax department has grossly

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR & Sh. Shrawan Kumar
Section 115BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56Section 69A

condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal without considered the merits of case. 3. That the National Faceless Assessment Unit of Income Tax department has grossly

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/JAB/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR & Sh. Shrawan Kumar
Section 115BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56Section 69A

condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal without considered the merits of case. 3. That the National Faceless Assessment Unit of Income Tax department has grossly

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/JAB/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR & Sh. Shrawan Kumar
Section 115BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56Section 69A

condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal without considered the merits of case. 3. That the National Faceless Assessment Unit of Income Tax department has grossly

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B.1) In this case, order under section 271B of the I.T. Act was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) levying penalty amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, by the AO vide order dated 28.03.2019 passed u/s 271B of I.T. Act. The relevant portion

SANGEET GUPTA,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 83/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Sangeeta Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhati, Itama, Maihar, Satna Ward-1, Satna Pan:Bdipg5378M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law, As Has Been Initiated By Jao Instead Of Faceless. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Case, The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law On Account Of Not Giving Sufficient Time Of 30 Days To Assessee To Reply The Notice Under Section 148A(B). 3. On The Fact & Circumstance Of The Case, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Dismissing The Appeal In Liming Without Condoning The Delay Even When There Exist Reason & Sufficient Cause Behind The Delay So Caused Was Beyond The Control Of The Appellant. 4. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of 21,23,97,680/- Credited In The Bank Account Of The Assessee In Cash Form Without Considering The Fact That Assessee Duly Uploaded The Audit Report On E-Portal, Confirming The Source Of Cash. Further Id. Cit (A) Also Erred In Not Considering The Reply Filed In The Appeal Proceeding, As Well As In The Assessment Proceeding By Assessee, To Dismiss The Appeal Being Filed Beyond Allowable Time Having Sufficient Cause.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

condonation petition to explain the delay of 123 days. It was submitted that the reason for the delay was that the assessee’s husband had been charged in a police case by the Unchehara Police Station of Satna District on 17.08.2018 and therefore, the assessee was unable to make to file 2 A.Y. 2018-19 Sangeeta Gupta returns, make compliance

RAJVANSH HOTEL,GADARWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, NARSINGHPUR

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

ITA 145/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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

business or profession” amounting to Rs.1,88,637/-. The CPC processed the return filed by the assessee and in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, reclassified part of the income as “income from other sources” and made an additional assessment of Rs.4,05,433/- and created a demand of Rs.6,03,348/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 167/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

delayed by 11 days. The assessee has filed a condonation petition and sworn an affidavit, in which it has been submitted that he resides at a small place (Seoni) in Madhya Pradesh and is engaged in the business of trading of agricultural produce. The case had been reopened under section 147 pursuant to notice dated 6.07.2022, on the allegation that

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 168/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

delayed by 11 days. The assessee has filed a condonation petition and sworn an affidavit, in which it has been submitted that he resides at a small place (Seoni) in Madhya Pradesh and is engaged in the business of trading of agricultural produce. The case had been reopened under section 147 pursuant to notice dated 6.07.2022, on the allegation that

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

ITA 195/JAB/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

Condonation of Errors and Relief on Merits in Interest of Justice The penalty is based on an addition which itself was challenged. The appellant made written submissions (albeit late), and attempted to explain the nature of deposits and his commission business. Even assuming the income was assessable, the profit element cannot be the entire gross deposit. The penalty on such

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

ITA 196/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

Condonation of Errors and Relief on Merits in Interest of Justice The penalty is based on an addition which itself was challenged. The appellant made written submissions (albeit late), and attempted to explain the nature of deposits and his commission business. Even assuming the income was assessable, the profit element cannot be the entire gross deposit. The penalty on such