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.

41 results for “condonation of delay”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai520Kolkata334Mumbai329Delhi295Ahmedabad197Hyderabad176Jaipur157Bangalore128Pune95Surat79Indore60Amritsar56Rajkot54Chandigarh51Raipur46Nagpur41Calcutta39Visakhapatnam39Panaji34Lucknow33Patna26Cochin22Cuttack14Allahabad10Dehradun9Agra8Guwahati8Jodhpur7Jabalpur6Varanasi5Karnataka2SC1Ranchi1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 153C87Section 143(3)57Section 153A45Addition to Income40Section 6831Section 25024Unexplained Investment18Section 6915Section 26315

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 6. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the facts are, the assessee is an Individual. For the year under consideration, on 31/01/2018, the assessee filed his return of income electronically, disclosing total income of ` 12,96,33,940. During the course of regular assessment framed under

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

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

Section 14713
Cash Deposit10
Condonation of Delay10
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

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

unexplained investments u/sec 69 of the Act Rs.20,03,100/- and similarly interest income of Rs.1,25,251/- under the income from other sources and assessed the total income of Rs.24,51,811/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 15/01/2024. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed the appeal before

SHAIKH MAHMOOD SHAIKH CHANDA,ACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD-4, AMRAVATI

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

ITA 541/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshaikh Mahmood Shaikh Chanda, 4, Ward No.4, Achalpur, Pathrot -444808, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Alipc0613Q V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward–4, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Amravati-444601, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 271ASection 69

unexplained investment and completed the assessment ex- parte under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following the principle of natural justice and also initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC separately. The addition made is unjustified and contrary to facts and law. 6. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case

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

PRADIP GANGADHARRAO BHUDE,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 59/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

delay is condoned. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that in the instant case, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by recording reasons for reopening and issuing the notice dated 23.03.2020 u/s 148 of the Act mainly on the reason that the Assessee has made the investment of Rs.20

ASHISH BHAGWAN BALPANDE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 567/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lohiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

condone the delay of 504 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that due to non-compliance before the Ld.CIT(A), appeal of the assessee has been dismissed and, therefore prayed for affording one more opportunity to go before the Ld.CIT

OMPRAKASH SHANKARLAL SHARMA,DARYAPUR vs. D.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

delay is hereby condoned. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds:– 2 Shri Omprakash Shankarlal Sharma ITA no.156/Nag./2025 “1. THAT considering the fact of the case, the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,14,659/- presuming the deposited in bank is out of kerosene sale and recovery and treating the same as unexplained investments

LEENA ASHOK ZOPE,AKOLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,AKOLA, AKOLA

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

ITA 428/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleleena Ashok Zope, At Post Kurum, Tq. Murtizapur Dist. Akola -444 115, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aatpz1101G V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Aayakar Bhawan, ……………. Respondent Akola-444001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.Ar Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 56(1)(x)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

unexplained investment is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 10 The assessee denies the liability of interest charges U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, the same may kindly be deleted. 11. The appellant craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3 Leena Ashok Zope 2. At the time

MADHUR LAXMAN GADIKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1), NAGPUR

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

ITA 406/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemadhur Laxman Gadikar, Kharbikar Mohalla, House No.426–B Ward No.27, Golibar Chowk ……………. Appellant Jaganath Gol, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra, Pan – Avzpg3725G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(1), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2016–17 on 27/03/2018, disclosing a total income of Rs.90,780. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has received information that the assessee has purchased immovable property during the year and the provisions

SUNIL BHAIYAJI MALEWAR,BHANDARA vs. ITO WARD -2, BHANDARA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 257/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shikha Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69

investment u/s section 69 of the Act. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however of no avail, 2 Mr. Sunil Bhaiyaji Malewar as the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the same in limine for want of limitation/delay of two months and ten day, in filing of 1st appeal. 4. The Assessee

SHAILBALA CHOWDARY L/H LATE SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA CHOWADAY,YAVATMAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed in the terms indicated above

ITA 205/NAG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subramanyam
Section 153C

unexplained investments and difference in the balance of books of account etc. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order, had partly allowed the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf

NURUDDIN ALIHUSAIN SURATWALA,AMATULLAH MANZIL vs. ITO WARD 4(4) NAGPUR, BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: MS. Alfiya Rozie, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69

unexplained investment u/sec.69 of the Act; Rs.10,78,000/- on account of income from other sources u/se.56(2)(x) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.33,33,160/- . 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 180/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(d)Section 2(22)(e)

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 3. The sole issue for our adjudication relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted purchases. 4. Facts in Brief:– In this case, during the year, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading

MS. FATEMA SHOEB SHUSSAIN ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -2(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 82/NAG/2018[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

unexplained investment in House Property. 11] Learned A.O. erred in not properly consider assessee's submission and various documents filed before him. 12] Learned A.O. erred in not giving opportunity to put up there case before D.V.O. 13] Assessee craves leave to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing as may be necessary. 3. During the course of hearing

SHAIKH SULTAN SHAIKH FAKIRA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD -3 , AMRAVATI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal i

ITA 383/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryita Nos.380, 381, 382, 383 & 384/Nag/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt Veena Agrawal, Ld. CA (AmicusFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 11.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.7,88,020/- on account of unexplained income, Rs.30,725/- on account of interest earned from

SHAIKH SULTAN SHAIKH FAKIRA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD -3 , AMRAVATI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal i

ITA 380/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryita Nos.380, 381, 382, 383 & 384/Nag/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt Veena Agrawal, Ld. CA (AmicusFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 11.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.7,88,020/- on account of unexplained income, Rs.30,725/- on account of interest earned from

SHAIKH SULTAN SHAIKH FAKIRA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD -3 , AMRAVATI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal i

ITA 384/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryita Nos.380, 381, 382, 383 & 384/Nag/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt Veena Agrawal, Ld. CA (AmicusFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 11.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.7,88,020/- on account of unexplained income, Rs.30,725/- on account of interest earned from

SHAIKH SULTAN SHAIKH FAKIRA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD -3 , AMRAVATI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal i

ITA 382/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryita Nos.380, 381, 382, 383 & 384/Nag/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt Veena Agrawal, Ld. CA (AmicusFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 11.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.7,88,020/- on account of unexplained income, Rs.30,725/- on account of interest earned from

SHAIKH SULTAN SHAIKH FAKIRA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD -3 , AMRAVAT

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal i

ITA 381/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryita Nos.380, 381, 382, 383 & 384/Nag/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt Veena Agrawal, Ld. CA (AmicusFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 11.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.7,88,020/- on account of unexplained income, Rs.30,725/- on account of interest earned from