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 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad217Mumbai163Hyderabad152Chennai143Delhi124Kolkata114Jaipur113Pune101Bangalore100Lucknow84Surat79Visakhapatnam76Patna66Rajkot60Chandigarh47Indore43Amritsar34Raipur27Agra22Jabalpur18Cochin16Nagpur16Allahabad12Cuttack11Guwahati10Dehradun9Panaji7Jodhpur7Ranchi4SC2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 69A26Section 14712Addition to Income11Cash Deposit10Section 1449Condonation of Delay9Limitation/Time-bar9Section 1488Unexplained Money

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

section 69A of the Act which was added to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by concluding that the condonation of delay

8
Section 234A6
Natural Justice5
Section 153C4

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

section 69A of the Act which was added to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by concluding that the condonation of delay

SANDHYA VITTHALRAO DABRE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 322/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Mugdha Gangane, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. CIT D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

delay is condoned. 4. Coming to the merits of the case it is observed that the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act mainly on the reasons that as per information shared by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur to the effect that the Assessee during the assessment year under consideration has made investment

ASHISH HARISH PARSHIONIKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(5), NAGPUR

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

ITA 332/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryashish Harish Parshionikar, Ito, Ward-4(5), Nagpur. 214, Suyog Nagar, Manewada Vs. Road, Ring Road, Nagpur. Pan: Arbpp 1844 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

condoning delays, especially when the delay is due to bona fide reasons and not deliberate. 5. Meritorious Case: The appeal raises substantial grounds challenging the additions of Rs. 10,93,500/- under section 69A

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

condone the delay. 4. The assessee is a salaried individual, who did not file return of income believing that he did not have taxable income. During the year under consideration, the assessee was working as the Principal of Arvind Indo Public CBSE School at Saoner in Maharashtra. As per the information available with the Department that during the year

SUMEDH SOPANRAO MANWAR,WASHIM vs. ITO WARD 2 AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 258/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

69A of the Act which was added 2 Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar ITA no.257 to 261/Nag./2024 to the total income of the assessee. Similar is the situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 177 days in filing the first appeal from the date of passing of order under section

SUMEDH SOPANRAO MANWAR,WASHIM vs. ITO WARD 2 AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 257/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

69A of the Act which was added 2 Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar ITA no.257 to 261/Nag./2024 to the total income of the assessee. Similar is the situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 177 days in filing the first appeal from the date of passing of order under section

SUMEDH SOPANRAO MANWAR,WASHIM vs. ITO WARD 2 AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 260/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

69A of the Act which was added 2 Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar ITA no.257 to 261/Nag./2024 to the total income of the assessee. Similar is the situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 177 days in filing the first appeal from the date of passing of order under section

SUMEDH SOPANRAO MANWAR,WASHIM vs. ITO WARD 2 AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 259/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

69A of the Act which was added 2 Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar ITA no.257 to 261/Nag./2024 to the total income of the assessee. Similar is the situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 177 days in filing the first appeal from the date of passing of order under section

SUMEDH SOPANRAO MANWAR,WASHIM vs. ITO WARD 2 AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 261/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

69A of the Act which was added 2 Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar ITA no.257 to 261/Nag./2024 to the total income of the assessee. Similar is the situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 177 days in filing the first appeal from the date of passing of order under section

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

section 142(1) of the Act was issued and there was no proper compliance the Assessing Officer found that the explanations does not satisfy the sources of cash deposits in the bank account and was treated as unexplained cash credit u/sec 69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.46,95,000/–, and passed order u/sec 147 r.w.s

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

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified. 2 Anita Snehadeep Soni 3. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified in law and fact in passing an order in breach of principle of natural justice. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and withdraw any grounds before or during the course of appellate proceedings.” 2. During

SARVODAYA NAGRI CO OP PAT SOC LTD,SHEGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, KHAMGAON

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

ITA 330/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144Section 234ASection 69ASection 80P

delay is hereby condoned in view of the sworn Affidavit furnished by the employee of the assessee. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee relates to the addition of ` 6,70,500, under section 69A

EKNATH SHANKARRAO KAWARKHE ,MAHARASHTRA vs. NGP-W-(102)(2), NAGPUR

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

ITA 410/NAG/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleeknath Shankarrao Kawarkhe, 1, Jaipur, B.O. Washim -444507, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra, Pan-Cippk2836K V/S I T O Ward 10(2), Bsnl Rtc Building, ……………. Respondent Civil Lines,Nagpur-444000, Maharashtra.

For Appellant: Ms.Madhavi Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

69A of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal before

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(1), NAGPUR vs. LATE SHRI NARAYANDAS RATHI L/H SHRI ASHOK KUMAR RATHI,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 341/NAG/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69A

section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee on protective basis vide its order dated 21-12-2009. 8. The CIT(A) discussed the facts of the case and taking into account the addition made in the hands of M/s. Narayan Brothers for A.Y. 2004-05 deleted the addition of Rs.6

M/S NARAYAN BROTHERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER FO INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1-(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 55/NAG/2018[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69A

section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee on protective basis vide its order dated 21-12-2009. 8. The CIT(A) discussed the facts of the case and taking into account the addition made in the hands of M/s. Narayan Brothers for A.Y. 2004-05 deleted the addition of Rs.6