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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai58Karnataka21Mumbai13Pune11Ahmedabad11Delhi11Bangalore8Visakhapatnam7Kolkata7Amritsar6Lucknow6Jaipur6Surat5Raipur3Guwahati3SC2Cochin1Indore1Jabalpur1Cuttack1Hyderabad1Patna1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 80P14Section 271A8Penalty7Section 143(1)6Section 10A6Section 271(1)(c)6Limitation/Time-bar6Section 271B5Section 271(1)(b)5

ANUNOY MUKHERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 555/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy Mukherjee Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Vs (4), Durgapur Near Hdfc Bank Bamunara Kanksa Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Cydpm3295A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & Shri Rohitash Gupta, C.A. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/07/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of One (1) Day In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Only Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act At Rs.1,36,214/-, Levied For Not Getting The Books Of Account Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 194CSection 250
Section 143(3)4
Condonation of Delay3
Deduction2
Section 271
Section 271A
Section 271B
Section 271C
Section 271D
Section 271E
Section 271F
Section 271G

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty u/s 271B of the Act at Rs.1,36,214/-, levied for not getting the books of account audited u/s 44AB of the Act. I.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy

DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

271A, 73[section section (1) 271, section 271AA,] section 271B73[, section 271BA], 74[section 271C, 75[section 271BB,] section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, 76[section 271F, 77[section 271FA,] 78[section 271FAB,]79[section 271FB,] 80[section 271G,]] 81[section 271GA,] 81a[section 271GB,] 82[section 271H,] 83[section 271-I,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section

PAIRAGACHA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PAIRAGACHA vs. ITO, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

section 80P of the Act also if the return of income are not filed before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Had it been a case of scrutiny proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the situation certainly would have been against the assessee subject to the approval by the authorities for condonation of delay

PAIRAGACHA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PAIRAGACHA vs. ITO, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 668/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

section 80P of the Act also if the return of income are not filed before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Had it been a case of scrutiny proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the situation certainly would have been against the assessee subject to the approval by the authorities for condonation of delay

SRI SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 206/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section of the office serves the assessment order on the assessee and whereas in this case, the assessee claims that the Assessing Officer himself has served the notice. 4. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to enquire into this issue raised by examining the dispatch register, the demand register and also whether the Assessing Officer has obtained similar

SRI SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 207/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section of the office serves the assessment order on the assessee and whereas in this case, the assessee claims that the Assessing Officer himself has served the notice. 4. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to enquire into this issue raised by examining the dispatch register, the demand register and also whether the Assessing Officer has obtained similar

SRI SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-1(4), ASANSOL, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 497/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section of the office serves the assessment order on the assessee and whereas in this case, the assessee claims that the Assessing Officer himself has served the notice. 4. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to enquire into this issue raised by examining the dispatch register, the demand register and also whether the Assessing Officer has obtained similar