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.

117 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad234Mumbai180Hyderabad157Chennai149Delhi133Jaipur117Kolkata117Pune113Bangalore109Lucknow87Surat81Visakhapatnam66Patna60Chandigarh55Rajkot46Indore41Amritsar37Cochin30Raipur29Agra22Guwahati21Jabalpur17Nagpur16Allahabad12Dehradun9Cuttack9Jodhpur7Panaji7Varanasi4Ranchi4SC2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69A122Section 25083Addition to Income72Condonation of Delay61Section 14760Section 14853Limitation/Time-bar43Cash Deposit34Unexplained Money

AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1367/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6

32
Section 14427
Demonetization25
Section 13224
Section 148A
Section 149
Section 149(1)(a)
Section 151
Section 151A
Section 250

condonation, duly explained and corroborated by the Appellant , a senior citizen. (Issue : Rejection of the delay solely on the ground of the length thereof, rather than the underlying reasons). B. Grounds concerning legality of the Reassessment Proceeding. B 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law , given the alleged escapement

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

condoning a delay of 436 days before him. 1.2 Vide his order dated 30.08.2021, the Ld.AO has made an addition of Rs. 4,28,29,080/- u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the Ld. AO on this point deserve to be extracted: 2 Biswajit Roy “4. Perusal of the Suspicious Transactions Report (STR) reveals the following modus operandi

BOUTIQUE DE FLEUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(2), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 446/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 446/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Boutique De Fleur,………………………………..Appellant Lawgical Consultants, 2D, Bentinck Street, Unit No. A, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aajfb1035D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 140Section 142(1)Section 249(2)Section 69A

delay is condoned. 2 Boutique De Fleur 4. The facts in brief are that during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016), the assessee-firm deposited cash of Rs.13,18,000/- in its Kotak Mahindra Bank, Minto Park Branch. The assessee was requested vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14.03.2018 to furnish a true and correct return

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,ALIPORE, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD- 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2987/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

sections for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's prayer for condonation of delay, which was based on wrong interpretation of date of service or communication of the Order and thereby in non-admitting the Appeal and denying justice to the Appellant

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,ALIPORE, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2989/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

sections for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's prayer for condonation of delay, which was based on wrong interpretation of date of service or communication of the Order and thereby in non-admitting the Appeal and denying justice to the Appellant

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,ALIPORE, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2988/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

sections for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's prayer for condonation of delay, which was based on wrong interpretation of date of service or communication of the Order and thereby in non-admitting the Appeal and denying justice to the Appellant

ISLAMPUR C S SHOP 2,ISLAMPUR, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4), RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR

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

ITA 2191/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm, which is running a liquor business. As per the ITS data, it was found that one Shri Kamlesh Singha (PAN BEGPS0018P) had deposited cash amounting to Rs.17,57,860/- in the Bank account bearing No.684105040000104 and Rs.1,10,540/- in the bank account bearing

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1081/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Deep Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. It is mentioned in the affidavit at para 17 that if the matter is set aside before the Ld. CIT(A) for passing of fresh order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, the assessee shall duly comply and respond 3 Ashok Kumar Gupta: AY: 2017-18 before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANMUKH VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1238/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Sanmukh Vincom Private Kolkata Limited 5Th Floor, Room No.5/12/2B, 15-2-380/382, Landmark Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Shop No.3, Siddiamber Bazar, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Hyderabad, Telangana-500012, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs9735Q Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹4,88,00,000/- as made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3.1. The facts in brief

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

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 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

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

K T HANDLOOMS, BURDWAN,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, BURDWAN

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

ITA 1860/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1860/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 K.T. Handlooms,……………………..………...……Appellant R.B. Basu Sarak, Sadarghat, Burdwan-713103, West Bengal [Pan:Aaofk4187G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(1), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Bishewar Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 21, 2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of bed-sheets, bed-covers, pillow covers, curtains, mats and other related handloom items and filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.7,86,260/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS

SMRITI JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-33(2),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1224/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1224/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Smriti Jaiswal,…………………………..…………Appellant Flat 33, 86 Prince Golam Hossain Street, Kolkata-700032 [Pan:Afdpj6962N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Sankar Lal Poddar, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

delay in filing the appeal was happened due to bonafide reason and accordingly the same is condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, having house property income and income from proprietary business, M/s. Movie Max, which runs Popkorn Cinema at Galaxia Mall, Ranchi. Further, the assessee is also partner in M/s. Sujata Picture

RABINDRA NATH MAITY ,MANDIRTALA vs. ITO,WARD-26(4). , KOLKATA

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

ITA 254/KOL/2023[254]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Rabindra Nath Maity Ito, Ward-26(4), Kolkata Mandirtala, Sagar, South 24 Vs. Parganas - 743373 Pan: Bcipm 4853 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Respondent By : Shri C.P. Bhatia, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Bhatia, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

condoning the delay of 434 days. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is erred in ignoring the fact that the appellant hails from remote area of Sagar Island of the district of South 24 Parganas, West Bengal and for income tax matters fully dependent on the income tax consultants and hence

KAUSHALYA SINGHA,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), SILIGURI

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

ITA 611/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 5Section 69A

69A of the Act and Rs. 60,837/- as interest income tax at normal provisions. The ld. AO has passed the assessment order u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act whereas the AO has treated the entire cash deposit of Rs. 26,07,000/- and non-cash deposit of Rs. 1,70,844/-; total amounting

DIPIKA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 50(2), NOW WARD 50(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 50(2) Dipika Singh Now Word 50(1), Bhatendra East Raypara Uttarpan, Manicktala Civic Rajarhat, Barasat, Vs. Centre, Kolkata-700067, Kolkata-700135, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bllps4355P Assessee By : S/ Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Anirban Gupta, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: S/ Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Ms. Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 145(3)Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Dipika Singh; A.Y. 2017-18 03. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹20,63,763/- by ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of cash deposited during the demonetization period u/s 69A