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.

240 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai602Delhi464Chennai329Kolkata301Ahmedabad250Jaipur240Bangalore200Surat159Pune147Hyderabad128Karnataka126Indore102Chandigarh63Rajkot61Lucknow57Nagpur54Cuttack43Calcutta43Cochin40Patna35Visakhapatnam33Agra26Guwahati25Raipur24Amritsar24Ranchi23Panaji17Jabalpur13SC11Allahabad10Dehradun7Jodhpur5Varanasi3Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)68Addition to Income66Penalty62Condonation of Delay59Section 14848Section 14747Limitation/Time-bar42Section 271(1)(b)34Section 250

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee in support of his claim along with condonation delay application also provided the affidavit as per the law, It is further submitted that even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) could have asked assessee to furnish other evidences in support

Showing 1–20 of 240 · Page 1 of 12

...
31
Section 14425
Section 270A22
Deduction21

RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

ITA 22/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 68Section 69C

271(1)(c)", "Section 260A", "Section 30(1)", "Section 30(2)", "Section 31(1)", "Section 33", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963", "Rule 45 of Income Tax Rules 1962" ], "issues": "The primary issue was whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) should be dismissed due to a significant delay in filing, or if the delay could be condoned

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek BasotiaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69A

condone the delay as the assessee was vigilant and was prevented by sufficient cause and therefore, we admit this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the sale proceeds from the sale of rural agricultural land as income u/s 69A. 4 Roshal Lal vs. ITO 2

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Section 250 r.w.s. 251 of the IT Act. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal as there is no allegation that delay in filing the appeal is mala fide or it is deliberate, rather it is bona fide based on reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It is further submitted that an assessee

SHAILENDRA GARG,SIRGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1560/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1561/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1564/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1555/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1563/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1557/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 8/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1562/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1559/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 7/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 6/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1558/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred