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.

13 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 249(4)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai373Chennai187Kolkata183Ahmedabad160Delhi155Bangalore145Chandigarh122Hyderabad118Jaipur103Karnataka102Surat75Raipur74Pune63Indore54Lucknow42Visakhapatnam39Cochin37Amritsar29Agra28Panaji28Patna23Cuttack22Rajkot15Guwahati14Nagpur14Jodhpur13Ranchi13Jabalpur9Allahabad8Calcutta7Dehradun6Varanasi6Telangana3Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14714Section 249(3)7Condonation of Delay7Section 69A6Section 12A6Section 271(1)(b)6Natural Justice6Addition to Income6Section 143(3)

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

4 ITA 87/Jodh/2019_ Vamita Singh Vs ITO 6. The appellant craves leaves to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before its hearing before your honor.” 6. There was delay of 62 days in filing the present appeal, for which, the authorized representative of the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay

5
Section 115
Section 1444
Disallowance3

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

LAKECITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 306/JODH/2019[2013-14 (24Q - Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Chandra Pokharna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta JCIT DR
Section 234ESection 249

Section 249 does allow the admission of appeals filed with delay if the CIT(A) is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within time However, as discussed in the preceding Para, the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in filing of the appeals under consideration Application for condonation

MANOHAR SINGH,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT,CIRCLE, BARMER

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

ITA 725/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Him & Thereby Refusing To Condone The Delay Under Section 249(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Passed On 14.12.2017 By The Ld. Ao. The Assessee Filed The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) On 04.10.2018, Resulting In A Delay Of 261 Days. The Assessee Had Indicated In Form No. 35 That The Grounds For Condonation Of Delay Would Be Submitted At The Time Of Hearing. However, As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A), No Such Submission Was Made Despite Multiple Opportunities. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed In Limine By The Ld. Cit(A) Without Adjudicating The Matter On Merits. 3. Before Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Unintentional & Caused Due To Reasonable Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. It Was Prayed That The Delay Be Condoned & The Matter Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 249(3)

249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 14.12.2017 by the Ld. AO. The assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 04.10.2018, resulting in a delay of 261 days. The assessee

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

ITA 783/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Gupta, CA (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 69A

section 249(3), the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the additions on merits. The specific finding of the CIT(A) in para 2.9 of the order reads as under: “In light of the above legal position and judicial pronouncements, I have considered the reasons for delay in filing the present

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

ITA 782/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Gupta, CA (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 69A

section 249(3), the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the additions on merits. The specific finding of the CIT(A) in para 2.9 of the order reads as under: “In light of the above legal position and judicial pronouncements, I have considered the reasons for delay in filing the present

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

ITA 781/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Gupta, CA (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 69A

section 249(3), the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the additions on merits. The specific finding of the CIT(A) in para 2.9 of the order reads as under: “In light of the above legal position and judicial pronouncements, I have considered the reasons for delay in filing the present

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JODH/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest

NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BHILWARA vs. ITO (EXEMTION), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 168/JODH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad168/Jodh/2018 (Assessment Year- 2008-09) Vs Noble Educational Society, The Ito Kuwada Road Behind Sophia (Exemption), School, Suwana Road, Ajmer Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatn5198G

Section 10(23)Section 12ASection 148Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

sections 11 and 12 shall be available in respect of any income derived from property held under trust in any assessment proceeding for an earlier assessment year which is pending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration, if the objects and activities of such trust or institution in the relevant earlier assessment year are the same

JANAK SINGH BHATI,JAISALMER vs. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assesses are allowed for

ITA 857/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 144BSection 147

section 147/144 of the act and that while rejecting the condonation of delay, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts and genuine reasons of the delay and arbitrary rejected the appeal. It is seen that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has addressed the relevant issue on merits of the case that the assessee could explain

JANAK SINGH BHATI,JAISALMER vs. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, FACELESSS ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assesses are allowed for

ITA 856/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 144BSection 147

section 147/144 of the act and that while rejecting the condonation of delay, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts and genuine reasons of the delay and arbitrary rejected the appeal. It is seen that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has addressed the relevant issue on merits of the case that the assessee could explain

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

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

ITA 795/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 194C

4. Against the order of the Ld. AO The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 129 days, supported by an affidavit of Shri Dinesh Singh Solanki, partner of the firm, stating that due to his prolonged illness, he could not access his e-mail account, on which departmental communications were received. It was explained that

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

249 (Delhi) and where the Court had observed:- "8. In view of this long line of decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along