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.

57 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 148clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai738Mumbai722Delhi513Kolkata460Ahmedabad336Bangalore280Pune270Hyderabad259Jaipur255Surat220Indore145Karnataka141Chandigarh138Amritsar108Visakhapatnam93Rajkot91Lucknow90Cochin83Patna79Nagpur57Raipur52Calcutta46Panaji44Cuttack42Agra38Jabalpur31Guwahati25Allahabad20Dehradun15Varanasi14SC9Jodhpur8Telangana8Ranchi7Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2Orissa2Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153C85Section 14851Section 143(3)39Section 153A37Section 26335Addition to Income35Section 14732Section 25029Section 6828

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)

148 was not made on the assessee since it was sent on the email id of an old consultant. 6. That the appellant craves to leave, to add or alter, delete amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the ground herein above, the appeal.” 3. We find that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

Condonation of Delay24
Limitation/Time-bar16
Penalty15

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

condonation of delay and the reasons for the late filing of the appeal. No opportunity was provided to explain the delay adequately. The appellant reserves the right to add, delete, or modify any grounds during the course of the appeal.” 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the assessee has deposited cash

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

condonation of delay and the reasons for the late filing of the appeal. No opportunity was provided to explain the delay adequately. The appellant reserves the right to add, delete, or modify any grounds during the course of the appeal.” 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the assessee has deposited cash

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

condonation of delay and the reasons for the late filing of the appeal. No opportunity was provided to explain the delay adequately. The appellant reserves the right to add, delete, or modify any grounds during the course of the appeal.” 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the assessee has deposited cash

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

condonation of delay and the reasons for the late filing of the appeal. No opportunity was provided to explain the delay adequately. The appellant reserves the right to add, delete, or modify any grounds during the course of the appeal.” 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the assessee has deposited cash

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCITACIT CIRCLE-3 , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

condonation of delay and the reasons for the late filing of the appeal. No opportunity was provided to explain the delay adequately. The appellant reserves the right to add, delete, or modify any grounds during the course of the appeal.” 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the assessee has deposited cash

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

condonation of delay and the reasons for the late filing of the appeal. No opportunity was provided to explain the delay adequately. The appellant reserves the right to add, delete, or modify any grounds during the course of the appeal.” 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the assessee has deposited cash

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

condonation of delay and the reasons for the late filing of the appeal. No opportunity was provided to explain the delay adequately. The appellant reserves the right to add, delete, or modify any grounds during the course of the appeal.” 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the assessee has deposited cash

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 9. We find that assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) was completed on 21.12.2018. in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) recorded that notices under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee and that such notices were replied by assessee with details

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

condone the nominal delay of 35 days in the appeals filed. The learned Counsel further explained that notice under section 148

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

condone the nominal delay of 35 days in the appeals filed. The learned Counsel further explained that notice under section 148

LOKSEWA SHIKSHAN BAHUUDDESHIYA MANDAL,BULDHANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Lokeswa Shikshan The Commissioner Of Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, V Income Tax-I, Nagpur. C/O. Dr.Arvindw.Kolte, S Janta College, Buldhana Road, Malkapur – 443101. Pan: Aaatl5306N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjay Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur Dated 11.11.2014 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Material Already On Record The Learned Cit Should Have Granted Registration U/S. 12A As Per Assessee’S Application Filed On Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A]

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 148Section 253(3)

condonation application that there is a delay in filing of appeal before ITAT of eight years, eighty-eight days. 2.2 The appellant has given following reasoning in the Affidavit for delay : “However for A.Y.2015-16 the return had remained to be filed and hence the (case of the Assessee was reopened for A.Y.2015-16 by notice u/s.148 dt.30.03.2022. It was in this

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

condone the delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit, as no mala fide intention can be ascribed to the assessee. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Company engaged in financial activities. The assessee, on 30/09/2013, filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total loss

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

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)

148 and proceedings thereafter u/s. 147 are bad in law and wrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in not quashing the same. (4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in assessing income of Rs. 15,70,377/ as Business Income and Rs. 17,500/- as income from Other Sources. On facts

NEELAM JANARDHAN RACHALWAR,CHIMUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 276/NAG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

delay of 57 days in filing the present appeal, is hereby condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 27/12/2019 u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has made the addition of Rs.36,13,000/- on account of difference between the consideration shown by the Assessee

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

condoned the delay of 21 days in tiling of appeal since the 2 Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede ITA no.461/NAG./2025 assessee being a person with no means working as Watchman. The assessee was advised to provide with the documents for claiming of relief which he received on 09th May 2023 and subsequent to which appeal before the CIT(A) was filed

SUDAM KISANRAO WANI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NAGPUR

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

ITA 460/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudam Kisanrao Wani, Plot No.86A, Vitthal Nagar–Ii Hudkeshwar, Maiginagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur -440 034, Maharashtra. Pan- Aaypw9239K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(1), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.R. Revenue By : Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 148Section 69

148 of the Act and u/sec 142(1) of the Act and there was no compliance to the notices. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, based on the information available on 3 Sudam Kisanrao Wani record has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of fixed deposits as unexplained investments u/sec 69 of the Act Rs.20

SANJAY MOTIRAMJI MULEY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD (4)(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 4/NAG/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Motiramji Muley, Ward No.7, Mahajan Pura ……………. Appellant Bhandara Road, Pardi Nagpur 440008. Pan – Akdpm6463G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(4), Nagpur Assessee By : Ms. Alfiya Rozie.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya Rozie.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Further, notice under section 142(1) r/w section 143(2) of the Act along with questionnaire calling for the confirmation of unsecured loan, computation of income and property details. Since there was non–compliance by the assessee, the Assessing Officer considering the information available on record has invoked

ABID MUSTAFA KHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 502/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ("JAO") is without jurisdiction since this notice could have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer ("FAO") and hence the entire assessment proceedings are bad in law and deserve to be quashed. 02. Reopening beyond three years is invalid since the amount of cash deposits in the bank is Rs. 46.95 lakhs. Assessing