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.

18 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai229Mumbai206Pune151Hyderabad146Delhi116Ahmedabad97Kolkata75Bangalore61Visakhapatnam56Jaipur53Indore51Chandigarh46Lucknow45Rajkot45Cochin42Surat30Agra22Patna21Nagpur18Raipur17Dehradun15Amritsar10Guwahati10Allahabad8Jabalpur8Cuttack7Jodhpur5Panaji4Ranchi2Karnataka1Himachal Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14719Section 14815Addition to Income14Condonation of Delay14Section 69A10Section 234A10Section 2507Natural Justice7Section 144

ASTAVINAYAK GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JANEPHAL vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON

In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly

ITA 158/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh ToshniwalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 147Section 148Section 2(31)Section 249Section 249(2)

condone the delay in filing the appeal is reproduced as under- 3 Astavinayak Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit ITA no.158/Nag./2025 "The Joint Commissioner(Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period

6
Section 80P(2)(a)6
Section 144B6
Deduction3

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 169/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

144B r/w section 147 of the Act at ` 19,88,25,743. He also initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

144B r/w section 147 of the Act at ` 19,88,25,743. He also initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay

CINE CORPORATION OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 405/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and pass order on merit. 4. The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order passed by the first appellate authority. 5. The learned A.R. submitted that an appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A) against the Assessment order under section 147 r/w section 144B

SANT TUKDOJI NAGRI SHAHKARI PAT SANSTHA LIMITED, HINGANGHAT,HINGANGHAT vs. ITO WARD - 2, WARDHA

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

ITA 356/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144Section 234ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

condonation of delay and adjudicated the various grounds on merits. Dismissal of appeal is not in accordance with law. 2 Sant Tukdoji Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. 3. The order passed by A.O. u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 4. The income assessed by A.O. at Rs.78,52,056/- is illegal

ARPITA MATHEW ARUKAKKAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 501/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalearpita Mathew Arukakkal, Residency Road, Sadar Nagpur- 440001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Arkpm3965D V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–5(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 151(1)

condonation of delay filed during the appellate proceedings. 2 Arpita Mathew Arukakkal 2. On the facts and circumstances of case the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without deciding the appeal on merit and without considering the circumstances occurred in filing the appeal in delay as no notice

SUVARNA SHRIKANT DESHMUKH,BULDHANA vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGOAN

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

ITA 369/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Shwetanshu Dev, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147

delay of 429 days in filing first appeal before the learned Commissioner, challenging the assessment order dated 03/01/2024, passed under section 147 r/w section 144 r/w section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Suvarna Shrikant Deshmukh ITA no.369/Nag./2025 3. The assessee, before the learned Commissioner, claimed as under:– "The appellant is from a small

PRAKASH SHESHRAO WANKHEDE,KORADI KAMPTEE, NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 461/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 54F

section 54F was not given without appreciating the fact that the construction was carried out by local contractor & as assessee was staying in small village with no knowledge about the storage of bills. vouchers etc. & there was no requirement for clearance of pollution etc. The lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and further erred

GANESH MAHADEORAO THAWARE,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 5(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kapil BahriFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

144B of the Act ex–parte and made addition of ` 3,65,19,694, under section under section 69A of the Act, which was added to the total income of the assessee. 5. On appeal, the assessee challenged the re–opening of assessment before the learned CIT(A) amongst other grounds as well. However, the learned CIT(A) set aside

ANITA SNEHADEEP SONI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 274/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 69A

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law. 2. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified in law and fact in upholding that the addition of Rs.66,46,346/– on account of purchase of Jewellery as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified. 2 Anita Snehadeep Soni 3. Whether

DEVISION ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT , CIRCLE-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed with liberty as granted

ITA 100/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale
Section 144Section 144BSection 147

condonation of delay. Even otherwise, the assessee, before the Ld. Commissioner as well, filed first appeal with a delay of more than eight months. It is also a fact that the assessment order dated 21/03/2022, was also passed ex–parte under section 147 r/w section 144 r/w section 144B

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 418/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A(9)Section 272(1)(d)Section 44ASection 50CSection 80C

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 15.03.2023, without due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in raising an arbitrary and excessive demand of Rs. 9,76,265/-, rendering the assessment order unjustified, unwarranted, and bad in law. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred

PURUSHOTTAM JAIRAM & CO.,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 434/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepurshottam Jairam & Co. Plot No.69, Lakadganj Nagpur 440 008, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aabfp8919J V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee By: None(Letter Dt 7.10.2025) Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: None(Letter dt 7.10.2025)For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2020–21 on 08/02/2021 disclosing a total loss of Rs.28,17,717/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/sec

IDRISH KHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), NAGPUR

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

ITA 315/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royidrish Khan, 1St Floor, Aman Ito, Ward – 2(2), Nagpur Majestic, Dinshaw Factory Vs Road, Katolroad S.O., Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur, Pan : Afhpp 5844 H Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 148ASection 194HSection 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 15.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 469 days in filing the instant appeal. Affidavit for condonation

RAMENDRA SINGH PARIHAR,NAGPUR vs. NGP-W-(2)(2), NAGPUR

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

ITA 349/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royramendra Singh Parihar, Ito, Ward-2(2), Nagpur. Flat No. Sa 1 & 16, Rewati Vs Apartment, Amravati Road, Opp. Gurudwara Wadi, Nagpur-440023 Pan : Anhpp 2294 D Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Veena Agrawal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Veena Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 25.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 423 days in filing the instant appeal. Assessee has filed an application

KANHAIYA KRUSHI KENDRA,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD -1 , YAVATMAL

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

ITA 427/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekanhaiya Krushi Kendra Main Bazar Line, Fulsa Wangi Mahagaon Dist. ……………. Appellant Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Pan – Aaofk4226A V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shriabhishek Kumar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: ShriAbhishek Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 68

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The Brief facts of the case that the assessee is a Partnership Firm and has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2017–18, disclosing a total income of Rs.88,140/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer on a perusal of the information found that

MAYURA NILESH LATI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrymayura Nilesh Lati, Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur B-01, Padmanabh Residency, Plot No.16/B, Tilaknagar, Vs. Nawabarea Layout, Near Whc Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur. Pan: Aevpl 2151 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yash Varma, Ld. CA throughFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 49(1)

delay 103 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that Assessee is an individual, house-wife and not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration and she did not have any taxable income. The Assessing Officer noticed, on perusal of the information available with the Department, that Assessee

AMRAVATI JILHA VIMA KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and bad in law; 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirmed addition made by the assessing officer at Rs.12,25,000/-, therefore addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 2 Amravati Jilha Vima Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit ITA no.8/Nag./2024