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.

69 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 202clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai141Karnataka126Chennai85Kolkata69Nagpur59Delhi35Visakhapatnam31Bangalore22Hyderabad22Pune21Jaipur19Rajkot19Surat19Ahmedabad14Panaji11Chandigarh7Dehradun7Indore5Varanasi5Lucknow4Jodhpur4Telangana3SC3Patna2Cochin2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Raipur1Rajasthan1Calcutta1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar42Section 143(3)41Condonation of Delay38Section 25029Section 115J29Addition to Income29Section 521Disallowance21Section 43B

KANOI TEA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 8. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4

20
Section 69A20
Deduction20
Section 26315

SPARKS SOFTWARE ADVISORY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 332/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 332/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sparks Software Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Tax 80/2, Pathuria Ghat Street (Appeals)-18 Vs 1St Floor Kolkata - 70006 Pan : Aapcs3961A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Appeals - (18), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/06/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Four Grounds Of Appeal Out That That Ground No. 1 & 4 Are General In Nature & Do Not Call For Recording Of Any Finding.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 14ASection 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 68

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

GIRIK ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD 6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 170/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 7. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 13. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts

NAINA DEVI MERCHANTS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 127/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered tliat in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

BHARATI RANI SAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 7. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts

BHARATI RANI SAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 7. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts

BHARATI RANI SAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 421/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 7. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 7. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts

ZULU MERCHANDISE (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 6. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts

MONITOR VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 469/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Monitor Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-4(2), Kolkata P-41, Princep Street, 6Th Floor, Vs. Kolkata-700072. Pan: Aafcm 1761 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar & Shri Rajiv Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.03.2017 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AR and Shri Rajiv KumarFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 253Section 3Section 5

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered tliat in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

BHARAT TIRTHA RICE MILL,BURDWAN EAST vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 6 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Bharat Tirtha Rice Mill 8. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions

SHRI RITU RAJ SINGH,PORT BLAIR vs. ITO, RANGE-37, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143Section 250Section 250(3)Section 253Section 253(5)

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered tliat in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 645/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 13. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of that Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding. 14. The rest of the two grounds read as under:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 13. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of that Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding. 14. The rest of the two grounds read as under:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned. Ground No.1 & 2 – Vide Ground Nos.1 & 2, the assessee has 4. agitated the confirmation of addition of Rs.10,10,774/- made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions to section 43B of the Act for delay in depositing employees contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance. 5. Heard both the sides. At the outset, we note that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries