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.

30 results for “condonation of delay”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai948Mumbai598Delhi518Hyderabad509Ahmedabad447Pune412Kolkata392Bangalore345Jaipur255Chandigarh240Amritsar187Cochin171Visakhapatnam169Surat166Indore139Lucknow129Patna126Raipur113Rajkot104Agra87Cuttack81Nagpur71Panaji62Calcutta37Allahabad34Jabalpur31Jodhpur30Guwahati25Karnataka23Varanasi20Dehradun10Ranchi7SC5Telangana3

Key Topics

Section 14833Addition to Income27Section 6824Section 14717Section 14413Natural Justice13Cash Deposit13Section 153C12Section 15412

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR vs. BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE , PALI

Accordingly, it is held that the AO rightly added Rs.19,06,200/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act,1961. The appellant fails on this ground. The ground raised by the appellant regarding this issue is, hereby, ...

ITA 347/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-Central Circle-2 Bhanwar Singh Rathore बनाम/ Room No.68, Income Tax Office Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Paota, C-Road Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. Rajasthan-306 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.02/Jodh/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Bhanwar Singh Rathore Acit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Room No.68, Income Tax Office Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Paota, C-Road Vs. Rajasthan-306 401 Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) & MsFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

cash deposits. 3 Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore Assessment Year: 2012-13 1.2 The registry has noted a delay of 254 days in assessee’s cross-objections, the condonation

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

Condonation of Delay12
Section 143(3)11
Section 25010

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8/JODH/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

delay in filing of appeal may kindly be condoned since the appellant was completely unaware and was under the false impression that his previous income tax consultant has filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the ITAT. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/JODH/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

delay in filing of appeal may kindly be condoned since the appellant was completely unaware and was under the false impression that his previous income tax consultant has filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the ITAT. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/JODH/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

delay in filing of appeal may kindly be condoned since the appellant was completely unaware and was under the false impression that his previous income tax consultant has filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the ITAT. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/JODH/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

delay in filing of appeal may kindly be condoned since the appellant was completely unaware and was under the false impression that his previous income tax consultant has filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the ITAT. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7/JODH/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

delay in filing of appeal may kindly be condoned since the appellant was completely unaware and was under the false impression that his previous income tax consultant has filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the ITAT. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified

KAPIL MARLECHA,PALI vs. ITO,WARD-3,, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 248/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.01.2018 declaring income of Rs.2,36,420/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of cash deposits

SEEMA PANDIT,MOUNT AU vs. ITO, WARD, MOUNT ABU

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

ITA 160/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

Section 154Section 250(6)

delay of 208 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “i). That

GEN SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with directions as above

ITA 408/JODH/2023[2017-189]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-189

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

cash deposits were sale proceeds of milk and products. The CIT(A) condoned the delay but, despite notices, found no compliance

MUNNA RAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 24/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

delay in the instant case clearly demonstrated that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. Accordingly, 4 he held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well- settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation

KAMAL KISHORE,SUJANGARH vs. ITO WARD-3 CHURU, CHURU

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 538/JODH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69A

cash deposits in the bank account as alleged unexplained money income u/s 69A. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the addition may kindly be deleted in full. 4. The Id. AO has grossly erred

HASTIMAL ,JALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, JALORE

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

ITA 116/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR

cash deposited during demonetization period the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The ld. DR has no objection

LOKESH GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 155/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits 4. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: "1. Notice uw/s 148 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. In the reasons recorded there is no escapement of income. Reasons are to verify the transactions. 3. Addition

LOKESH GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 156/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits 4. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: "1. Notice uw/s 148 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. In the reasons recorded there is no escapement of income. Reasons are to verify the transactions. 3. Addition

KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA ,SUMERPUR vs. ITO,, SUMERPUR

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

ITA 334/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 202Section 250Section 250(6)

delay for 240 days of the assessee is duly condoned. 3. In the outset, one appeal of the assessee is filed against the appeal order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Act and another appeal against the order which was passed u/s 154 related to rectification of the main appeal order for the impugned assessment year. The issue of both

KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA ,SUMERPUR vs. ITO,, SUMERPUR

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

ITA 339/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 202Section 250Section 250(6)

delay for 240 days of the assessee is duly condoned. 3. In the outset, one appeal of the assessee is filed against the appeal order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Act and another appeal against the order which was passed u/s 154 related to rectification of the main appeal order for the impugned assessment year. The issue of both

NARAYAN LAL PURBIYA,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHILWARA

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

ITA 412/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat. May It Please Your Honours. The Appellant Is Resident Of A Small Village In Bhilwara District.The Appellant Was Not Assessed To Tax Prior To The Assessment Year Under Consideration As His Income Was Below Taxable Limit. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellant Made Total Cash Deposits Of Rs. 10,13,900/- In His Bank Account, On The Basis Of Which The Ld. Ito, Ward-4,Bhilwara Initiated Proceedings U/S. 147/148. For Filing The Return Of Income & Persuing The Case Before The Ao The Appellant Had Engaged Sh. Ankit Lakhotiya. As His

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 144Section 147

condonation of delay of 11 days in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. May it please your Honours. The appellant is resident of a small village in Bhilwara District.The appellant was not assessed to tax prior to the assessment year under consideration as his income was below taxable limit. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year

VIJAY PURI,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144BSection 44ASection 69A

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted on merits. 4. Having considered the submission of both the sides and perusal of record, we find that admittedly, the assessee has filed return u/s section 44AD of the Act as he did not maintain the books of the account. The Ld. CIT (A) has summarily rejected the appeal

JAI PAL CHOWDHARY,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, NOHAR, HANUMANGARH

The appeal is dismissed as unadmitted

ITA 539/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 250

condone the delay." 4. From the record, we find that the assessee has neither filed any affidavit nor any material evidence to substantiate its bona fide and sufficient cause for the said delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee has not even complied to the notices issued

AAMEEN BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the ground no

ITA 571/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 124(3)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 69

delay for 3 days is condoned. 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was initiated due to deposit of cash