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.

71 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 251clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai145Mumbai122Karnataka102Delhi89Ahmedabad78Pune73Kolkata71Raipur61Bangalore58Hyderabad49Jaipur46Lucknow23Nagpur22Surat20Indore20Patna17Chandigarh16Panaji16Rajkot9Jodhpur5Amritsar5Cochin4Visakhapatnam3Calcutta3Cuttack3Guwahati3Jabalpur3Allahabad2Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1SC1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 25047Section 143(3)43Limitation/Time-bar42Condonation of Delay42Section 8037Addition to Income35Section 69A25Section 14823Deduction

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 587/KOL/2020[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

Section 10Section 12A

section 10(23C)(vi). According to the ld. CIT(Exemption), these applications were time-barred and, therefore, he Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Bishnupur Public Education Institute rejected all the applications. The relevant finding recorded by the ld. CIT (Exemption) reads as under:- “A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application has been submitted vide

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

18
Section 14717
Section 1017
Section 12A14
20 Apr 2022
AY 2016-17

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

Section 10Section 12A

section 10(23C)(vi). According to the ld. CIT(Exemption), these applications were time-barred and, therefore, he Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Bishnupur Public Education Institute rejected all the applications. The relevant finding recorded by the ld. CIT (Exemption) reads as under:- “A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application has been submitted vide

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 586/KOL/2020[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 10Section 12A

section 10(23C)(vi). According to the ld. CIT(Exemption), these applications were time-barred and, therefore, he Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Bishnupur Public Education Institute rejected all the applications. The relevant finding recorded by the ld. CIT (Exemption) reads as under:- “A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application has been submitted vide

PRESTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT 5(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 802/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 253(3)Section 5

251 days was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). In the affidavit filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, it is stated that the delay in filing the appeal is attributable to non- cooperation of a section

THE EXECUTOR TO THE ESTATE OF SUKHENDU PRASAD CHOUDHURY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1278/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of substantive justice. 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer, CPC (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') is seen to have issued an intimation order dated 22.03.2023 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), in which TDS claim of Rs. 71,583/- was not granted ostensibly because

SHRI NITYANAND PANDEY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1),, HOOGHLY

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

ITA 2067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 22.04.2024 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. I.T.A. No.: 2067/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nityanand Pandey

BASTUHARA SAHAYATA SAMITI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 444/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

condonation of delay in submission of Form 10 before the ld. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata which was rejected by the ld. CIT vide order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act dated 20.12.2018. It was noted that the claim has not mentioned in the ITR 7 and in the resolution passed in the Executive Committee meeting, the fund

STARPOINT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 340/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) The Learned NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming additions made in the assessment order by passing ex-parte order and without deciding the appeal of merits and hence the order of NFAC may be set-aside

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 25/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 183Section 282Section 68

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Finally, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 251 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone

M/S SIKAR ZILLA WELFARE TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Sikar Zilla Welfare Income Tax Officer, Trust Ward 1(3), Exempt 1A, Sikar Bhawan, Vs. Ashutosh Dey Lane, Kolkata-400071 Kolkata-700006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts3808D Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Patra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 39(1)

condoned and it is directed that the appellant be allowed exemption as would be due to him as per law. The ld. AO is directed accordingly.” M/s Sikar Zilla Welfare Trust; A.Y. 2018-19 05. Similar issue was also deal with by this Tribunal in Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust (supra), where also the facts are almost identical and the assessee

PALLISHRI SAMABAYA KRISHI UNANYAN SAMITY LIMITED,COOCHBEHAR vs. I.T.O., WARD 2.1, COOCHBEHAR

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

ITA 476/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the order u/s 250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is against the principle of natural justice. 2. For that

ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1611/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata M/S. Manaksia Limited 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Manaksia Limited Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, Aca Revenue By : Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, Cit, D/R

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 5

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though it is not a notice

GIASUDDIN SHAIKH,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

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

ITA 1134/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has been carrying on the business of Labour Contract Job under N.T.P.C. Ltd. Nabarun, Murshidabad and he submitted his return of income disclosing income of Rs. 11,85,740.00 for the AY 2017-18. The assessee claimed

DCIT, CIR-2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI vs. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, COOCHBIHAR

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 576/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

condone the delay and admit the Revenue’s appeal for hearing. 3. The appeal as well as CO is heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 4. First we take up Revenue’s appeal. The grounds raised by Revenue are as under:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon

RISHIKESH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2431/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 245Section 250Section 250(4)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law in passing ex-parte order u/s.250 of the Act, in haste without considering the submission made in this appellate hearing before

INDIA CONSTRUCTION,DIAMOND HARBOUR vs. ITO, WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2592/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the learned Assessing Officer is bad in Law. 2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned

AVR STORAGE TANK TERMINALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1350/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dipran Mukherjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 250Section 32

condonation of delay, mention of filing of Form No. 10-IC and Form 3CA on Page 27 and the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra) relating to section 9 read with sections 5 and 40(a)(i) and Section 40(a)(ii) r.w.s. 28(i) of the Act on pages

EFFLUENT & WATER TREATMENT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, CIR.11(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 68/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 253Section 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 that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

SARANG DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1230/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) faceless has erred in by not deleting the adding of Rs. 80,50,000/- added by the Ld. A.O as unexplained cash credit though

SHREYA DEY SARKAR,PUNE, MAHARASHTRA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4),, RAIGANJ, WEST DINAJPUR

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

ITA 1649/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

condoned in the interest of justice. 3. FOR THAT the appellant had placed on record all relevant and verifiable documents such as Form 16, Form 12BA, Form 26AS, and TRACES TDS Certificate which clearly substantiated the correct amount of salary income, but the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same. 4. FOR THAT the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred