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.

281 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata283 Mumbai281 Delhi218 Chennai187 Bangalore129 Karnataka122 Jaipur121 Ahmedabad108 Hyderabad82 Surat64 Pune55 Calcutta42 Chandigarh38 Lucknow35 Cochin34 Visakhapatnam30 Patna23 Raipur21 Amritsar21 Indore20 Cuttack19 Rajkot18 Nagpur10 Varanasi8 Allahabad7 Guwahati7 SC5 Agra4 Panaji4 Telangana3 Ranchi2 Rajasthan2 Dehradun2 Orissa2 Andhra Pradesh1 Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income74 Section 143(3)70 Section 6866 Section 14762 Section 14862 Section 25036 Section 133(6)35 Condonation of Delay30 Section 143(1)

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRITBHAI K. THUMMAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Showing 1–20 of 281 · Page 1 of 15

...

21

Limitation/Time-bar21

section 133(6), Income tax return copy, bank statements, ledger statements, source of funds and all the loan interest was paid and TDS was also deducted. Here also AO had doubted their creditworthiness in extending their loan. I had examined bank statement, source of funds and net worth of above persons. Networth of the above persons is as under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SYSTEMATIX HOLDINGS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 470/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit-2(3)(1), M/S Systematix Holding R.No. 552, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, J K Somani Bldg. Mumbai-400020. British Hotel Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaics 4642 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Kabra Revenue By : Dr. Koshor Dule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Dr. Koshor Dule, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adj the delay and admit the appeal for adj the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its facts of the case are that the assessee filed its facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return

KANAIYALAL B SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4667/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhkanaiyalal B. Shah Jcit Range-19(2), 31, Jai Bhavani Society, Mumbai. Vs. 3 Rr Thakker Marg, Mumbai-400006. Pan: Aahpk4505D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Divya Jeswant (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr)

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Jeswant (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 254(1)Section 272A(2)(c)Section 273B

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Now, we shall proceed to consider the appeal on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case as extracted from the order of lower authorities, leading to levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(c) are that assessment of assessee was reopened on the basis of information received by Government of India from

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 506/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is running his business under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s Arihant Builders & Developers. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed

SITU SHASTRI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3970/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

condonation of delay and considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the present appeal is due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 5. Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under dispute, he filed his return of income

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1503/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Rituja Pawar Deswal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

133(6) of the Act which was not disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we find no merits in placing reliance on the bank statement of the assessee’s mother particularly when aforesaid evidence is not doubted by the Revenue. Further, the Revenue has also not doubted the genuineness of the 7/12 extract furnished by assessee’s mother in respect

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 932/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Rituja Pawar Deswal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

133(6) of the Act which was not disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we find no merits in placing reliance on the bank statement of the assessee’s mother particularly when aforesaid evidence is not doubted by the Revenue. Further, the Revenue has also not doubted the genuineness of the 7/12 extract furnished by assessee’s mother in respect

BHAGATRAM GODHWANI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 364/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagatram Godhwani, Income Tax Officer-10(3)(3), 165, 5-B, Sanjay Building No. 5, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Mital Industries Estate, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aabpg 3339 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Thakrar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

6. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the application for condemnation of the delay. As the delay period is covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. The parties were accordingly directed to argue the appeal. Bhagatram Godhwani 6.1 The ground

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6948/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (SR DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Aggarwal

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6950/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (SR DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Aggarwal

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6947/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (SR DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Aggarwal

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3738/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication, on merits. ITA 3738/Mum/2013 10. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013 are reproduced below:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

KESARAM CHATARARAMJI CHOUDHARY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(21)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6556/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Naina ChaurasiaFor Respondent: 10/12/2025

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

133(6) of the Act. Kesaram Chatararamji Coudhary Kesaram Chatararamji Coudhary 3. On examination of the bank statements, the Assessing Officer On examination of the bank statements, the Assessing Officer On examination of the bank statements, the Assessing Officer observed that cash aggregating to ₹26,51,401/– had been deposited observed that cash aggregating to had been deposited

ITO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. RAJUL P.PAREKH, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 2266/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mishir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bisht

Section 133(6)Section 144

section 133(6), solely for that reason, the credit appearing in their name or part of purchases effected from them cannot be held to be non–genuine. If the Assessing Officer entertained any doubt with regard to the genuineness of these creditors, he could have made enquiry as the identity and income tax particulars of the concerned parties are available

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1360/MUM/2016[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

Section 244ASection 51

6. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the unilateral withholding of interest by AO on the perceived delay attributable to assessee is beyond the power conferred in the said section and hence the order passed thereof is liable to be struck down. 7. Without prejudice to the above, interest is compensation for money lying with the department

M/S N. G. GROUP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(2)(, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 503/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S N.G. Group The Income Tax Officer Plot No.8, Sector 11 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, Off Juinagar Railway Station, Vsrccl, Vashi Vs. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai–400703 Navi Mumbai –400709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01-11-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, SR. AR

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

6. That your honours are kindly requested to condone the delay since there was "sufficient cause" for the same. The true determination of the issue on hand will only advance the cause of justice. To refuse condonation of delay on ground of technicalities N.G. Group; A.Y. 09–10 would only subvert the cause of justice and prevent the correct facts

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4161/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

delay is condoned. Now adverting the hear the plea of ld CIT-DR for the revenue on merits. 27. On ground no. 1 which relates to addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during the relevant financial year, the assessee entered into transaction of purchase of time share weeks

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4162/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

delay is condoned. Now adverting the hear the plea of ld CIT-DR for the revenue on merits. 27. On ground no. 1 which relates to addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during the relevant financial year, the assessee entered into transaction of purchase of time share weeks

KELVIN AIR CONDITIONING AND VENTILATION SYSTEMS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 10(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4483/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh KariyaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay for filing appeal for 287 days. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company, engaged in business of installation of air conditioner and ventilation systems. The assessee filed the return under section 139 (1) by declaring total income of Rs.6,81,000/-. The return was processed under section

ORICON ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted

ITA 7387/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Orion Enterprises, Acit, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabfo0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Subhacham Ram Cit-Dr

Section 69ASection 80H

6 M/s Orian Enterprises of L. Balkrishanan. Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123. "The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into