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.

11 results for “condonation of delay”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai527Kolkata343Mumbai317Delhi308Hyderabad263Ahmedabad241Bangalore153Pune152Jaipur150Surat93Visakhapatnam79Chandigarh77Cochin67Lucknow50Patna49Indore44Rajkot42Raipur42Calcutta38Panaji33Nagpur32Amritsar30Agra25Guwahati22Cuttack21Allahabad12Jodhpur11Jabalpur11Dehradun6Varanasi5Ranchi2Orissa1SC1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 14712Section 69A12Section 14412Addition to Income11Section 6810Section 253(3)10Cash Deposit8Unexplained Money6Condonation of Delay

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

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

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

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

6
Disallowance5
Section 234A4
Section 249(3)3
ITA 7/JODH/2021[2006-07]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jodhpur
01 Nov 2021
AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

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

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

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

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

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

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

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

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 in law as well as on the facts

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

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The total assessed income was determined at Rs.72,52,000/-, and consequential demand was raised against the assessee 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal, however, was instituted belatedly with a delay of 284 days. The assessee pleaded that the delay occurred

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

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The total assessed income was determined at Rs.72,52,000/-, and consequential demand was raised against the assessee 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal, however, was instituted belatedly with a delay of 284 days. The assessee pleaded that the delay occurred

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

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The total assessed income was determined at Rs.72,52,000/-, and consequential demand was raised against the assessee 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal, however, was instituted belatedly with a delay of 284 days. The assessee pleaded that the delay occurred

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

unexplained money u/s 69A and determined total income at Rs. 25,68,455 taxable u/s 115BBE. 3. Against the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), contending that he never received the assessment order and came to know only when his bank account was attached. He submitted that he is an ex- serviceman running

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 during the demonetisation period. 4.1 The AO noticed