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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai275Hyderabad149Bangalore94Kolkata85Mumbai85Delhi82Ahmedabad68Patna59Jaipur58Pune54Visakhapatnam52Lucknow51Surat34Chandigarh33Panaji31Rajkot29Amritsar29Indore26Agra23Raipur21Cuttack16Allahabad10Nagpur10Cochin7Jodhpur6Jabalpur4Dehradun2Ranchi1Calcutta1Varanasi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Demonetization4Addition to Income4Section 1443Section 69A3Cash Deposit3Section 142(1)2Natural Justice2Limitation/Time-bar2Condonation of Delay

SUSHIL KUMAR,NARSINGHPUR vs. ITO, WARD, NARSINGHPUR, NARSINGHPUR

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

ITA 20/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sushil Kumar Ito, Ward Narsinghpur V. Main Road,Gandhi Ward, Income Tax Officer Ward, Kandeli, Narsinghpur, Mp- Narsinghpur, Mp-487001. 487001. Pan:Awwpk7164R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case it was informed to the Assessing Officer through “Annual Information Returns” (AIR) by the concerned bank that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.13,38,000/- in cash in his bank account

2

DHANYA KUMAR JAIN,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1),JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

ITA 173/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Dhanya Kumar Jain V. Ito Ward-2(1) 2719, Nagpur Road, Garha, Income Tax Office, Annexe Tripuri Chowk, Jabalpur- Building, Nagrath Chowk, 482001. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Awdpj1526D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

delay is condoned on the ground of medical exigency. The appeal is admitted for hearing. Page 3 of 5 5. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 through electronic mode on 04.08.2017, declaring total income of Rs.2,50,539/- and agriculture income

JAGVEER SINGH,BANDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,, SATNA

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

ITA 11/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Jagveer Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Bhiyamau Khohi Thana, Ward-1, Satna Baraunda, Satna, M.P. Pan:Eneps0024R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act On 20.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Ex-Party Order Passed U/S Rs. 144 For Ay 2018-19 On 20.03.2023 By Faceless Centre Holding Cash Deposits To The Extent Of Rs. 1,76,85,400/-Deposited In Bank Accounts As Unexplained Cash & Thereby Making Addition Of 1,76,85,400/- Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ex-Party Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed For Non Consideration Of Material On Record & Additions Made Of Rs 1,76,85,400/- Is Illegal In Want Of Non-Application Of Principles Of Natural Justice 3. Without Prejudice:-The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Party & Thereby Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer. The Ex-Party Order Passed By Learned Assessing Officer Being Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Inito Was Required To Be Quashed Instead Of Being Confirmed

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 147

demonetization and henceforth addition of Rs 1,76,85,400/- may kindly be deleted. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. AO has grievously erred in holding cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 1,76,85,400/- deposited in Bank accounts as unaccounted cash and thereby making addition

RAHMAN SHAH,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 175/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rahman Shah, H. No. 817, Vs. The Ito, Lakhanwarda Ghasanvada Bsrahira Ward-Chhindwara, M.P. Seja, Amarwada, Chhindwara, M.P. Pan:Ggkps4130P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Wherein The Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Ito-Ward 1, Chhindwara Under Section 144 Of The Act Dated 30.10.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. That The Learned Ao As Well As Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case Making Ex Party Order. The Assessee Did Not Received Any Communication Regarding The Hearing Of The Appeal. The Assessee Is Denied Opportunity Of Hearing. The Order Should Be Set-Aside. 2. The Addition Of Rs. 60,00,000/- Is Illegal Unjustified. It Is Fully Covered But The Withdrawals From The Same Bank Account. The Addition Should Be Deleted In Toto. 3. The Assessee Is An Agriculturist & Advised Not Liable To Income Tax. The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Should Be Quashed In Toto.

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 144Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period in the bank account of the assessee maintained at Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank, Parasiya, District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh and observed that the assessee was a non-filer. Therefore, a notice was issued to the assessee to file a return and upon failure to receive compliance of the same, further notice was issued along with the questionnaire to seek