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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 272A(2)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune188Delhi154Chennai76Bangalore43Visakhapatnam37Mumbai36Cochin26Surat22Karnataka21Nagpur19Lucknow14Kolkata10Panaji10Ahmedabad9Cuttack8Hyderabad6Indore4Jaipur4Rajkot3Patna3Raipur3SC2Jodhpur1Amritsar1Guwahati1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 80P14Section 271A9Penalty9Section 69A8Section 1448Condonation of Delay7Section 143(1)6Section 10A6Section 250

BISWAJIT ROY,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , JALPAIGURI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 866/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

272A(1)(d) penalty levied 30/12/2020 30/12/2020 e-mail No Response Letter 02/01/2021 02/01/2021 e-mail 2. Thereafter, the assessee approached the CIT(A) requesting for relief from the enhancement to income, after condonation of delay of 436 days. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has analysed the assessee’s request for condonation of delay factually and has come

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

6
Section 106
Cash Deposit6
Limitation/Time-bar5
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 250Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 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)

272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or 84[section 272B or] 85[sub-section (1) 86[or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] 87[sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or] clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person

BHAGAWAN RAM SHARMA,SIKKIM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, GANGTOK

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2078/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

Section 10Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69Section 69A

272A(1)(d) of the Act 29.08.2024 2 ITA Nos. 2078-2080/Kol/2024 Bhagawan Ram Sharma For the sake of convenience, the lead case will be ITA No. 2078/Kol/2024 pertaining to the quantum matter. In this case, three additions have been made as under: (a) Cash deposit during demonetization period of Rs. 18,38,000/- (b) Amount

BHAGAWAN RAM SHARMA,SIKKIM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, GANGTOK, SIKKIM

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2080/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

Section 10Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69Section 69A

272A(1)(d) of the Act 29.08.2024 2 ITA Nos. 2078-2080/Kol/2024 Bhagawan Ram Sharma For the sake of convenience, the lead case will be ITA No. 2078/Kol/2024 pertaining to the quantum matter. In this case, three additions have been made as under: (a) Cash deposit during demonetization period of Rs. 18,38,000/- (b) Amount

BHAGAWAN RAM SHARMA,SIKKIM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, GANGTOK

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2079/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

Section 10Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69Section 69A

272A(1)(d) of the Act 29.08.2024 2 ITA Nos. 2078-2080/Kol/2024 Bhagawan Ram Sharma For the sake of convenience, the lead case will be ITA No. 2078/Kol/2024 pertaining to the quantum matter. In this case, three additions have been made as under: (a) Cash deposit during demonetization period of Rs. 18,38,000/- (b) Amount

NURUNNESHA SARDAR,HOWRAH vs. ITO, 47(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 98/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Assessee was engaged in trading of motor cycles and accessories under the trade name Sankrail Automobiles since a long period. As the commodities are motor cycles therefore there had always been

THE PRINCIPAL, SALDIHA COLLEGE,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), TDS, BANKURA & PURULIA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2455/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2455/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Principal, Saldiha College Vs. Ito, Ward – 4(4), Tds Bankura & Purulia Saldiha, Bankura – 722 173. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaajs 5748 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Durgapur Dated 30.07.2018 Passed In Case No.161/Cit(A)/Dgp/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 200A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 272ASection 2jSection 2oSection 44E

2. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s petition dated 26.11.2018 and on account of Revenue’s non rebuttal to the factual averments therein, we condone the impugned delay of 27 days in filing of the instant appeal in the interest of substantive justice. The case is now taken for adjudication on merits. 3. It transpires during the course

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

272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-23(1), Hooghly dated 22.11.2016 u/s.143(3) of the Act for AY 2019-20 respectively. 2. Both the appeals are time barred by 14 days. In respect of AY 2018-19 the assessee has filed an affidavit

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

272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-23(1), Hooghly dated 22.11.2016 u/s.143(3) of the Act for AY 2019-20 respectively. 2. Both the appeals are time barred by 14 days. In respect of AY 2018-19 the assessee has filed an affidavit