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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 131clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata279Chennai212Delhi195Mumbai188Karnataka110Ahmedabad92Bangalore83Jaipur76Chandigarh53Hyderabad49Calcutta45Pune39Indore34Rajkot22Surat22Panaji19Nagpur15Visakhapatnam14Lucknow13Guwahati11Amritsar9Cochin8Jabalpur7Telangana6Raipur6Varanasi5Jodhpur5Agra4Kerala4SC3Patna2Dehradun2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1476Section 253(3)4Section 271(1)(c)4Penalty4Limitation/Time-bar4Condonation of Delay4Section 1313Section 693Addition to Income

RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, , KATNI

ITA 163/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR 1
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69

delay in the filing of the appeal was condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that as per the information available on the insight portal, the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the relevant period for Rs. 92,44,000/- from Sh. Sanjeev Prabhakar in the name of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi

RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,, KATNI

3
Section 69A2
Section 1482
ITA 162/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jabalpur
28 Nov 2025
AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ram Manohar Lohiya Ward No. 4, Behind Katni Durga Hospital, Adarsh Colony, Katni Pan: Auvps4330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr 1 Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 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 Dated 20.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act On 27.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1) The Order Passed By The Ld Cit (A) Is Bad In Law & Facts, Void Ab Initio & Without Jurisdiction. (2) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Defective. There Is No Application Of Mind Of Ld Ao & Also Of Sanctioning Authority. (3) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Assessee Made Specific Request To Share Copies Of All The Statement Recorded By The Investigation Wing Regarding The Sale Of Properties. These Copies Were Not Given Inspite Of Using Them Against The Assessee. (4) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Benami Transactions Has Released The Property & Given Relief To Alleged Benamidar & Alleged Beneficial Owner. Copy Of Order Was Filed On Record. (5) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 88,52,740/-U/S 69. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu (6) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR 1
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69

delay in the filing of the appeal was condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that as per the information available on the insight portal, the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the relevant period for Rs. 1,18,95,000/- from Sh. Sanjeev Prabhakar in the name of Sh. Amarnath

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)

131 & 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 Basant Lal Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, M/s. Basant Traders Churhat, Distt- Rewa Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh-486771. Income Tax Office Kothi PAN:AOMPG8305E Compound Becides Family Court, Rewa-486001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Respondent by Shri N. M. Prasad

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)

131 & 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 Basant Lal Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, M/s. Basant Traders Churhat, Distt- Rewa Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh-486771. Income Tax Office Kothi PAN:AOMPG8305E Compound Becides Family Court, Rewa-486001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Respondent by Shri N. M. Prasad

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)

131 & 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 Basant Lal Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, M/s. Basant Traders Churhat, Distt- Rewa Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh-486771. Income Tax Office Kothi PAN:AOMPG8305E Compound Becides Family Court, Rewa-486001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Respondent by Shri N. M. Prasad

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)

131 & 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 Basant Lal Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, M/s. Basant Traders Churhat, Distt- Rewa Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh-486771. Income Tax Office Kothi PAN:AOMPG8305E Compound Becides Family Court, Rewa-486001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Respondent by Shri N. M. Prasad

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

131 of the Income Tax Act 1961 to Shri. Mahesh Soni and in response Shri. Mahesh Soni appeared before the ld. AO and owned up the cash deposits. He said he would offer the same for income tax and reflect the same in the return. The assessee also appeared before the ld. AO and informed that he was a farmer