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.

13 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai25Chandigarh24Surat21Jaipur20Hyderabad17Ahmedabad16Delhi16Chennai14Cochin14Kolkata13Bangalore11Rajkot9Pune8Dehradun6Visakhapatnam3Guwahati3SC2Indore2Amritsar2Lucknow1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 69A15Section 25012Condonation of Delay11Section 44A10Section 2638Limitation/Time-bar8Section 687Section 143(3)6Section 271A

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

6
Section 1325
Unexplained Money5
Natural Justice5
ITA 2989/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
17 Apr 2026
AY 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

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 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

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 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

SRIDHARPUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), BURDWAN

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

ITA 672/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 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: ITA No.: 672/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank. “1) That the Learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition made by the A.O. under section

HIRANMOY DAS,DURGAPUR vs. PCIT, ASANSOL

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

ITA 905/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: 25.04.2022. 3. That There Is A Delay Of 728 (Seven Hundred & Twenty-Eight) Days In Filing The Appeal.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263

condoning the said delay. 2. The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Asansol (in short 'the Ld. PCIT] dated 24.02.2022, passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.1 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee

DINESH JOSHI,GANGTOK, SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(2),, GANGTOK, SIKKIM

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

ITA 1841/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2019–20. 2. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 28 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the affidavit for condonation of delay, we find

MALAY ADDHYA,BONGAON vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1234/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80T

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal 4. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 81,83,464/- being the alleged difference in the market value and the stamp duty value by wrongly invoking the provision

K.R.OVERSEAS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-(CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 185/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the order made by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') is illegal, invalid