Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

354 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 51clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai578 Chennai498 Delhi426 Kolkata354 Bangalore251 Ahmedabad176 Hyderabad167 Jaipur156 Karnataka144 Pune126 Chandigarh115 Nagpur95 Indore58 Lucknow54 Rajkot43 Surat42 Cuttack42 Amritsar41 Calcutta38 Cochin36 Raipur34 Visakhapatnam22 SC19 Jodhpur13 Telangana13 Patna10 Guwahati9 Jabalpur8 Allahabad6 Varanasi6 Orissa5 Agra4 Dehradun4 Rajasthan4 Panaji3 Andhra Pradesh1 Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 148115 Section 27474 Addition to Income68 Section 14761 Section 271(1)(c)50 Limitation/Time-bar43 Section 25040 Section 143(3)39 Condonation of Delay

SHRI GOBINDO CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-50(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1396/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 51

condone delay by enacting Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial

SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA

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

Showing 1–20 of 354 · Page 1 of 18

...

35

ITA 1986/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: Disposed

ITAT Kolkata

25 Jul 2025

AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 51

condone delay by enacting Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial

BHUBAN MONDAL,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 42(2),, MURSHIDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

section 249(2) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted.” 1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not having condoned the non-deliberate delay of 1900 days in filing of the appeal by rejecting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ADARSH HEIGHTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1949/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 253Section 270A

51 days. An application seeking condonation of delay for 45 days has been filed by the assessee for condoning the delay stating as follows: “1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)-20/11265/2017-18 the A/Y. 2018-19 in the case of Adarsh Heights, an appeal has been preferred

SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI,MURSHIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1617/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT)-14, SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Kolkata, for the assessment year 2010-11. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows. (1) That

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 529/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 625/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

SRIYANS ENTERPRISES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1298/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1298/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 22, Brb Basu Road, 1St Floor, Room No.14, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaics 4667 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 13.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belated By 136 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay. The Contents Of The Application Are As Under :- Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench Ref: Appeal Petition Filed On: In The Matter Of : - An Application For Condonation Of The Delay In Filing The Memorandum Of Appeal Against The Appellate Order Dated 13-11- 2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-2017; & In The Matter Of The :- A Memorandum Of Appeal Filed Under The Income Tax Act, 1961; & In The Matter Of: -

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

condone the delay of 136 days in filing of the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income as per provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for AY 2016-17 on 19.10.2016 declaring total income

M/S PANCHANAN MALLICK & BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3, BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1386/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1386/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-2011) M/S Panchanan Mallick & Vs. Ito Ward-3, Bankura Brothers, Po-Kotulpur, District-Bankura "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfp 7708 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Sri Nicholas Murmu, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Durgapur, In Appeal No.143/Cit(A)/Dgp/2012-13, Dated 03.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 17.01.2013. 2. First Of All We Noticed That This Appeal Is Time Barred For 51 Days. The Assesse Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. After Hearing The Ld Ar For The Assesse & Ld Dr For The Revenue In Respect Of Such Delay, We Find A Reasonable Cause To Condone The Delay & Accordingly We Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 17.01.2013. 2. First of all we noticed that this appeal is time barred for 51 days. The assesse filed an application for condonation of delay

SHREE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1152/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 253(3)

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. 4.0 Further, it is humbly submitted that the provision limiting the time for filing the appeal may please be liberally interpreted so that the appropriate action to pursue remedy is allowed to the appellant by the law and is not deprived

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUBLIME AGRO LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1358/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 80I

delay of two hundred thirty seven days in filing appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) due non-availability of assessment record and malfunctioning of copying machine which may kindly condoned. ii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-22 has erred

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

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

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

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\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1496/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM\nIT(SS)A No.86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2017-18 to 2020-21, 2021-22)\nAmar Kumar Agarwal\nC/o M/s Salarpuria Jajodia&\nCO.7, CR Avenue, 3rd Floor,\nKolkata-700072, West Bengal\n(Appellant)\nDCIT, CC 4(3)\nAaykarBhawanPoorva,\nVs.110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass,\nKolkata-700107, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. ADDPA3301L\nITA Nos.1496,1497,1498, 1499/KOL/2025, & 1440/KOL/2025\n(Α.Υ.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21,

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\nΑ.Υ. 2017-18\nIT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee's appeal)\n4.\nThe issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is\nagainst the order of Id. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing\nthe application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts\nfrom sale

V.MART RETAIL LTD,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 7,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2120/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri V. N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in retail business through a chain of out lets. They filed their return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 16.9.2009 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,33,27,140/- and on 21.9.2010 they have filed their revised