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.

32 results for “condonation of delay”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai544Kolkata371Mumbai333Delhi312Hyderabad242Ahmedabad231Bangalore155Jaipur145Pune142Surat97Visakhapatnam77Chandigarh68Rajkot59Cochin58Indore54Patna52Lucknow52Raipur41Calcutta38Panaji33Nagpur32Amritsar28Agra24Cuttack17Guwahati14Jabalpur12Allahabad10Dehradun6Jodhpur6Varanasi5Ranchi1SC1Orissa1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 153C89Section 153A37Section 143(3)31Section 6831Section 69A27Addition to Income26Section 25019Unexplained Money14Condonation 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 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

condoned the nominal delay as explained in application and affidavit submitted and adjudicated the grounds on merits of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the merits of grounds on the basis of evidence on record. 6. The notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

14
Limitation/Time-bar13
Section 14711
Section 1449

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

condoned the nominal delay as explained in application and affidavit submitted and adjudicated the grounds on merits of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the merits of grounds on the basis of evidence on record. 6. The notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid

ABDUL IRFAN ABDUL AJIJ SHEIKH,WARDHA vs. ITO, WARD-2, WARDHA

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

ITA 78/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Shrishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A in the hands of Assessee is bad in law, illegal and deserves to be deleted in toto.” 2. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed

SHRI AMIT ARVIND BANDE,GADCHIROLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

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

ITA 221/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: MS Alfiya Rozie, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Act. He submitted that when the appeal has been carried-out before the learned CIT(A), he explained that the delay could not be filed in-time due to illness and he paid tax of Rs.1,40,574/- against the order passed and pleaded that the delay may please be condoned

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

YUVRADHANI AGRO & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD-1, YAVATMAL , YAVATMAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/NAG/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.47/Nag/2026 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Yuvradhani Agro & Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd. Ward-1, Yavatmal G.No 68 Ralegaon, Yavatmal 445402, Maharashtra Pan: Aaacy5622R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms.Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

unexplained money. Thereafter assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) which was delayed by 265 days. Majority of the delay pertains to covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. However, still ld.CIT(A) has not condoned

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

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

unexplained money under section 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

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

unexplained money under section 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

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

unexplained money under section 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

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

unexplained money under section 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

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

unexplained money under section 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

YOGESH HARILAL PATEL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed, but for statistical purpose only

ITA 557/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

condone the delay of 315 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 3 Yogesh Harilal Patel ITA no.557/Nag./2024 3. The learned CIT(A) has passed ex–parte order, which reads as under:– “There is no gainsaying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on his part

ADDS AQUACULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 577/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250

condone the delay of 469 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 against the addition of ₹ 9,50,000/-, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), however, assessee failed to succeed since no compliance was made before

ANNUVA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 84/NAG/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryannuva Infrastructure Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur. Ltd., Plot No.1249, Near Sindhu Bhawan, Vs. Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur-440017. Pan: Aahca 0371 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

delay involved is condoned. 3 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessee by filing its return of income on dated 18/12/2017 declared loss of Rs. 191/-. Subsequently, on the basis of search conducted at the residence and various premises of Mr. Shirish C. Shah, who happened to be main persons engaged in providing

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3 Eknath ShankarraoKawarkhe ITA no.410/NAG./2025 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y.2014-15. The Assessing Officer has received information that the assessee has deposited Rs.48,91,000/– in the bank account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi

NAVIN PIPALWA,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL

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

ITA 47/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

delay of 107 days are condoned. 3. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR did not advance any arguments, hence, no adjudication is required. 4. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming

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

unexplained money within the meaning of 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

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

unexplained money within the meaning of 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

condoned. In this regard, it is to be mentioned here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 10/01/2022, passed in M.A. no.21 of 2022, in M.A. no.665 of 2021, in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) no.3 of 2020, has held that the limitation period for filing the appeal was extended upto 29/05/2022. In view of this, since