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.

16 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai88Cochin40Jaipur28Pune23Karnataka21Delhi20Bangalore17Lucknow16Ahmedabad16Mumbai16Kolkata16Amritsar12Hyderabad12Indore10Visakhapatnam9Rajkot9Guwahati7Raipur4Allahabad4Patna3Jabalpur2Chandigarh1Cuttack1SC1

Key Topics

Section 144B13Section 271B12Section 271(1)(c)9Section 44A9Penalty9Addition to Income7Section 686Deduction6Natural Justice6

MOQEETUR RAHMAN KHAN,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/LKW/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramoqeetur Rahman Khan V. Ito-4 971, Mannan Manzil, Sadar Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Bazar, Lucknow G.P.O, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agrpr4785N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (B). In this case, assessment order dated 28.04.2021 was passed by the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). Separately, penalty proceedings u/s 271B

Disallowance5
Section 2504
Section 69A4

G.S.EXPRESS PVT.LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is held to be partly allowed

ITA 633/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Private Ltd., C-877 Vs. The D. Commissioner Of Income Mahanagar, Lucknow Tax, P.K. Complex, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aaccg5655J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Imposing A Penalty Under Section 271B On 29.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Considering That The Show Cause Notice U/S 271B Of 1. T. Act Dated 31.12.2019, Did Not Specify That Whether The Penalty Is For Failure To Get Accounts Audited Or Failure To Furnish The Report & Thus Non Striking Of Irrelevant Clause Renders The Penalty Notice Invalid As Also The Consequential Penalty Order As Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Above 2-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- U/S 2718 Of 1. T. Act, Without Appreciating That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Delay In Audit & Obtaining Report U/S 44Ab Of It Act As Due To Search & Seizure On 01.02.2018 The Entire Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing. 3-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Did Not Appreciate That Books Of Accounts & Related Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing & Only After Obtaining Copy Of Seized Documents

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

271B was issued on 31.12.2019 i.e. after the date of filing the Audit Report and thus there was no ambiguity that the penalty was levied for a delay in the filing of the Audit Report. On the issue of the reasonable cause, the ld. CIT(A) 4 A.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Pvt. Ltd. held that the search was conducted

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025 315 to 317/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 10 In the present case, the service of the penalty order u/s 271B dated

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025 315 to 317/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 10 In the present case, the service of the penalty order u/s 271B dated

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025 315 to 317/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 10 In the present case, the service of the penalty order u/s 271B dated

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025 315 to 317/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 10 In the present case, the service of the penalty order u/s 271B dated

UMA SHANKAR AWASTHI,UNNAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(4), UNNAO

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

ITA 773/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Uma Shanker Awasthi V. Income Tax Officer 2(4) House No.76 Unnao Hiran Nagar, Unnao Tan/Pan:Afypa1750N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

sections 271AAC, 271A, 271B and 271F of the Act, separately. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee after admitting additional evidences and considering the Remand Report of the AO. 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the Ld. NFAC by raising

ABHISHEK TRIPATHI,JHINJHAK KANPUR DEHAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR

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

ITA 489/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Abhishek Tripathi V. The Ito Ward No.15, Shankarganj Ward 1(3)(1) Jhinjhak Kanpur Kanpur Dehat (U.P) Tan/Pan:Atjpt8479N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

sections 270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee. ITA No.489/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 8 2.1 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Nashik

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. D.C.I.T. RANGE-6 (JAO), LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 174/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 199

271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance of Rs.66,44,641/- being prior period expenses and non-allowance of credit for TDS. The NFAC deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs.33

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT,RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 199

271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance of Rs.66,44,641/- being prior period expenses and non-allowance of credit for TDS. The NFAC deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs.33

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 247/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jagat Narayan Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 14Section 250Section 80P

delay in filing of any of the appeals is condoned and all the appeals are being taken up for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case, in ITA No.243/Lkw/2020, are that the same was picked up for scrutiny on account of large deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 34/LKW/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jagat Narayan Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 14Section 250Section 80P

delay in filing of any of the appeals is condoned and all the appeals are being taken up for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case, in ITA No.243/Lkw/2020, are that the same was picked up for scrutiny on account of large deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD, BALRAMPUR, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 243/LKW/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jagat Narayan Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 14Section 250Section 80P

delay in filing of any of the appeals is condoned and all the appeals are being taken up for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case, in ITA No.243/Lkw/2020, are that the same was picked up for scrutiny on account of large deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

ITA 258/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271bSection 274Section 68

condonation for delay shall be filed at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. That the order of ld. CIT(A) is in gross violation of principal of natural justice. 3. That the learned assessing officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271b of the income tax act, 1961. 4. That the tax audit report of the relevant year was already

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

ITA 257/LKW/2023[F.Y. 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271bSection 274Section 68

condonation for delay shall be filed at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. That the order of ld. CIT(A) is in gross violation of principal of natural justice. 3. That the learned assessing officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271b of the income tax act, 1961. 4. That the tax audit report of the relevant year was already

SHRI MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (NOW ITO-1(2)), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

ITA 679/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271bSection 274Section 68

condonation for delay shall be filed at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. That the order of ld. CIT(A) is in gross violation of principal of natural justice. 3. That the learned assessing officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271b of the income tax act, 1961. 4. That the tax audit report of the relevant year was already