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.

366 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 6clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai3,998Mumbai3,819Delhi3,091Kolkata2,085Pune1,787Bangalore1,664Ahmedabad1,368Hyderabad1,176Jaipur875Patna741Surat615Chandigarh560Indore528Nagpur483Cochin440Raipur408Visakhapatnam381Lucknow366Rajkot319Amritsar313Karnataka296Cuttack277Panaji174Agra146Dehradun101Calcutta98Guwahati89Jodhpur80Jabalpur64SC62Allahabad61Ranchi59Telangana48Varanasi37Andhra Pradesh16Orissa10Rajasthan10Kerala7Punjab & Haryana6Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay64Section 206C54Addition to Income52Limitation/Time-bar42Section 143(3)41Section 12A39Natural Justice34Section 14431Section 69A

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 88/LKW/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

6. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee without providing the assessee with a due and proper opportunity of hearing and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set-aside being bad in law. 7. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee purely

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 90/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

6. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee without providing the assessee with a due and proper opportunity of hearing and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set-aside being bad in law. 7. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee purely

Showing 1–20 of 366 · Page 1 of 19

...
31
Section 14826
Section 234E25
Section 14721

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

6. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee without providing the assessee with a due and proper opportunity of hearing and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set-aside being bad in law. 7. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee purely

FUTURE MONEY SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, A-28,NEAR BANKEY BIHARI TAMPEL RAJENDRA NAGER, BAREILLY-243001,,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2),BAREILLY-NEW., BAREILLY-NEW

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

ITA 194/LKW/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriafuture Money Sales & Income Tax Officer-1(2) V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd Rampur Garden, Bareilly- A-28, Near Bankey Bihari New-243001. Tample, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aabcf4395H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(b)Section 249(3)

6 of 12 condonation of delay moved by the assessee so far, I am of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal inasmuch as such delay had occurred on account of sheer negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee in adhering to the provisions of the statute and the Limitation

WAKEEL AHAMAD,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 696/LKW/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 248Section 249(2)Section 69A

Section 249(3)of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right, but has to Satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. Page 4 of 7 v. Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, RURA,RURA, KANPUR DEHAT vs. CPC, BANGALORE ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

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

ITA 102/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 5

condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.” (A.1) In the aforesaid appellate order, the learned CIT(A) observed that the appellant had not made any submissions for justifying substantial delay in filing of the appeal. The relevant discussion is at paragraphs 4 to 4.6 of the aforesaid order of learned

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. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

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. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

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. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

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. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. VYAVSAYIK PARIKSHA PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 571/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Cit (Exemptions) V. M/S Vyavsayik Pariksha Parishad Lucknow 2, Aliganj Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatv9447J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 17 08 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 09 2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 121Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(4)

condoning the delay in filing Form no. 10B, by the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow. 6. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The provisions of section

SHRI NARESH KUMAR YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kumar VermaFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 147Section 148

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Class IV Government employee, working in the Indian Railways. For the year under consideration, the assessee did not file return of income, as his income was below the taxable limit. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. As per information available with

M/S U.P HINDI SANSTHAN,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 254(3)

section 12A of the Act. In the factual matrix before us, we find that on one hand the Ld. CIT(A) has condoned the delay on the part of the assessee in filing of Form No. 10; whereas, the Ld. CIT(E) has refused to condone this delay. After deliberations at the time of hearing before us, the representative

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P HINDI SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 254(3)

section 12A of the Act. In the factual matrix before us, we find that on one hand the Ld. CIT(A) has condoned the delay on the part of the assessee in filing of Form No. 10; whereas, the Ld. CIT(E) has refused to condone this delay. After deliberations at the time of hearing before us, the representative

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 263(1)

condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for such delay has been filed. The relevant part of the application explaining cause of delay is reproduced as under: - “1) Computation of number of days of delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble I.T.A.T.: (a) Date of passing of impugned Order u/s 263 of the Income

SANT HARAJINDAR SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERITO-2(4), PILIBHIT-1, PILIBHIT

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

ITA 565/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 69A

section 249 of the Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x); As mentioned above reasons proffered by appellant are not sufficient cause with proper explanation. 6.1.5 I find that delay of 251 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While interpreting

ARPIT KUMAR TOMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 250/LKW/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Arpit Kumar Tomar Income Tax Officer V. Flat No.B3, B21, Krishna 6(1), Lucknow, Uttar Garden, Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh-201021. Pan:Ajbpt8004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Balaji, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

delay in filing of Form 10B and condonation thereof vis a vis the circulars issued by CBDT in exercise of powers vested under section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came up before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Little Angels Education Society Vs Union of India and Others

CENTRAL METHODIST CHURCH,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, CIT DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 250

delay of 15 days is condoned to permit the assessee to withdraw the appeal. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2022-23 on 7.11.2022 declaring its total income at Rs. Nil. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and the total income

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

condonation of delay. Further, he contended that the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Ayaz Ahmad Ayyubi, who was solely handling the assessee’s case, was suffering from a terminal disease during the relevant period. He further contended that since there was no taxable income, the assessee had not filed the return of income. However, in response to the notice

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

condonation of delay. Further, he contended that the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Ayaz Ahmad Ayyubi, who was solely handling the assessee’s case, was suffering from a terminal disease during the relevant period. He further contended that since there was no taxable income, the assessee had not filed the return of income. However, in response to the notice