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.

137 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai328Delhi222Chennai216Indore186Ahmedabad182Kolkata169Karnataka139Jaipur137Surat122Bangalore108Lucknow107Chandigarh102Pune69Raipur47Cochin45Panaji43Hyderabad43Nagpur40Cuttack40Rajkot37Allahabad35Patna28Jabalpur22Jodhpur22Varanasi20Visakhapatnam17Guwahati14Amritsar12Ranchi9Agra8SC4Telangana2Calcutta1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay80Section 12A68Limitation/Time-bar53Addition to Income44Section 80G40Section 143(3)32Section 26331Section 14725Exemption

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

253 ITR 798 has held that though in exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the time prescribed, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Showing 1–20 of 137 · Page 1 of 7

22
Section 520
Natural Justice20
Section 253(5)19

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 980/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 40A(3)

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. There is no dispute that there has been a delay in filing the present appeal and the period of delay as computed by the Registry comes to 654 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

ITA 292/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

253(1)(c)—Name of Chartered Accountant was mentioned in petition—Counsel could not have conjured up name of Chartered Accountant—Not only period of delay has to be taken in account but also quality of explanation, the legal assistance, if any, sought and rendered to litigant, and detriment that condonation of delay would cause to the opposing party—Assessee

SHRI RAKESH GARH,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

ITA 318/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 271B

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. The Registry is directed to list the matter in due course. 13. Now we take

SHRI RAKESH GARG,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

ITA 317/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 271B

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. The Registry is directed to list the matter in due course. 13. Now we take

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

3) , Ahmedabad,2019 (2) TMI 1068 Condonation of delay - bonafide mistake at the end of the chief accountant - delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner - Held that:- Sub-section 5 of Section 253

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

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

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said additions. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said additions. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

253 (5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. 8 M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3.2 Thus

BHIM SINGH,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 57/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 5

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 318 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause 10 Bhim Singh vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Jaipur for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 3

SUB TREASURY OFFICER,ASIND , BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1003/JPR/2019[2016-17 (24Q-4qQtr)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2021
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salagia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there Sub treasury Officer Vs ACIT(TDS) has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 3 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253

SUB TREASURY OFFICER,ASIND , BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/JPR/2019[2018-19 (24Q-3rd Qtr.)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2021
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salagia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there Sub treasury Officer Vs ACIT(TDS) has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 3 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253

SUB TREASURY OFFICER,ASIND , BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/JPR/2019[2017-18 (24Q-4TH QTR.)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2021
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salagia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there Sub treasury Officer Vs ACIT(TDS) has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 3 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253

SUB TREASURY OFFICER,ASIND , BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1006/JPR/2019[2018-19 (24Q-4TH QTR.)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2021
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salagia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there Sub treasury Officer Vs ACIT(TDS) has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 3 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 661/JPR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40

CONDONATION OF DELAY U/S 253(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ("ITA") Hon'ble Sir/Madam, Siyaram City Cab Ltd. (‘’Assessee Company’’) is in receipt of order dated 24-01-2018, for the captioned assessment year assed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("ITA") by th eld. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeals) 3

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 275/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

253 ITR 798 (SC) (v) Collector, Land & Acquisition v/s Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation

AO (SC), AVVNL, SIKAR,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1349/JPR/2018[2013-14 , 24Q]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2022
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salgia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 1Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condonation of delay in Filing Anneal under Section 250 of the I.T. Act. With reference to the above captioned matter, the applicant/appellant most humbly begs to submit the following reasons for your Honour's kind perusal: 1. That original appeal documents were filled on date 30/11/2018 with the honorable office. 2. That the delay in filing of Appeal

MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Avadesh Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

253 (5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. 3.2 Thus, based on that provision tribunal

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 517/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma and Shri R.K. Batra (C.As.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 253Section 253(4)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals and submitted that there is inordinate delay of 240 days in filing the appeals and, therefore, the assessee cannot be allowed to file the appeals as and when the assessee thinks or decide to file the appeals ignoring the limitation provided under section 253 (3

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 153/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma and Shri R.K. Batra (C.As.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 253Section 253(4)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals and submitted that there is inordinate delay of 240 days in filing the appeals and, therefore, the assessee cannot be allowed to file the appeals as and when the assessee thinks or decide to file the appeals ignoring the limitation provided under section 253 (3