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.

75 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 13(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,286Delhi1,151Mumbai1,065Kolkata701Bangalore649Pune575Hyderabad494Jaipur412Ahmedabad344Chandigarh242Karnataka223Surat194Raipur178Nagpur147Indore136Amritsar115Lucknow112Visakhapatnam80Rajkot77Panaji75Cuttack73Calcutta52Cochin47SC46Patna45Guwahati27Dehradun23Telangana23Varanasi19Jodhpur18Allahabad16Agra11Jabalpur9Rajasthan6Kerala5Orissa5Ranchi3Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay64Section 24940Limitation/Time-bar31Section 253(1)30Section 14430Section 246A29Section 25026Section 12A22Section 153A

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,PANAJI, GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 281/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

13. As stated earlier, the present appeals are filed with inordinate delay of 902 days (approx.) beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence are time barred in terms of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals therefore in view provisions of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are subject to satisfying fourfold

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4

19
Section 80P(2)(d)16
Addition to Income12
Penalty10

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,GOA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 278/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

13. As stated earlier, the present appeals are filed with inordinate delay of 902 days (approx.) beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence are time barred in terms of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals therefore in view provisions of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are subject to satisfying fourfold

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 279/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

13. As stated earlier, the present appeals are filed with inordinate delay of 902 days (approx.) beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence are time barred in terms of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals therefore in view provisions of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are subject to satisfying fourfold

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,PANAJI, GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 280/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

13. As stated earlier, the present appeals are filed with inordinate delay of 902 days (approx.) beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence are time barred in terms of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals therefore in view provisions of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are subject to satisfying fourfold

RAJA BHAT AND KUMUDA FOUNDATION,BELAGAVI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELAGAVI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 270/PAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Raja Bhat & Kumuda Foundation Plot No. 4, Rs No1368, Kumudini, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan:Aajcr6351B . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 8

1) of section 139] (emphasis supplied) 10. Let’s first deal with ground number 2 relating to substantive verses procedural lapses on the part of appellant in complying with the provisions; a mindful reading of provision of s/clause (ii) of clause (b) of section 12A of the Act reveals that, the obligation to cause & get the accounts/books audited

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

13. As admitted found that, the present appeals are filed with delay of 802/803 days beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence barred by limitation as prescribed by s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals in terms of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are therefore subject to condition that, the appellant

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 171/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

13. As admitted found that, the present appeals are filed with delay of 802/803 days beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence barred by limitation as prescribed by s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals in terms of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are therefore subject to condition that, the appellant

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 170/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

13. As admitted found that, the present appeals are filed with delay of 802/803 days beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence barred by limitation as prescribed by s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals in terms of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are therefore subject to condition that, the appellant

SHRI LEO DINIZ,BORDA, FATORDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, PANAJI

The appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 150/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Deniz Row House No. 6 J P Andrade Residency, Borda Fatorda, Goa-403602 Pan: Amgpd8687A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging Order Dt.

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(1)

section 253 of the Act, is subject to fulfilment of certain pre-conditions which inter-alia dilated as; (i) the delay to be supported by an application/petition requesting condonation and (ii) also to be supported by an affidavit explaining reasons behind such delay and (iii) such reason stated in affidavit should form ‘sufficient cause’ for such substantial delay requested

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 6/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

1) or 253(2) of the Act is required to be filed within two months from the end of the month in which order sought to be appealed is communicated to the assessee. The present appeal as admittedly filed with ITAT-Panaji Page 10 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 delay

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 7/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

1) or 253(2) of the Act is required to be filed within two months from the end of the month in which order sought to be appealed is communicated to the assessee. The present appeal as admittedly filed with ITAT-Panaji Page 10 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 delay

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 5/PAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

1) or 253(2) of the Act is required to be filed within two months from the end of the month in which order sought to be appealed is communicated to the assessee. The present appeal as admittedly filed with ITAT-Panaji Page 10 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 delay

ASHAJYOTHI SC/ST MAHILA ABHIVRUDDHI KENDRA, BELAGAVI,BELAGAVI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

Appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/PAN/2025[2022-23 to 2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 162 & 290/Pan/2025

For Appellant: Mr Noel Gole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(1)Section 80G

condone delay in instituting the present appeals u/s 253(1) of the Act and proceed to adjudicate limited issue of ex-parte rejections. Recording the same, advanced accordingly. 4. Briefly stated common facts borne out of these case records are; the assessee is a society established on 03/05/1996. Pursuant to separate applications filed under amended provisions

ASHAJYOTHI SC/ST MAHILA ABHIVRUDDHI KENDRA,BELGAUM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, BENGALURU

Appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/PAN/2025[AY 2022-23 to AY 2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 162 & 290/Pan/2025

For Appellant: Mr Noel Gole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(1)Section 80G

condone delay in instituting the present appeals u/s 253(1) of the Act and proceed to adjudicate limited issue of ex-parte rejections. Recording the same, advanced accordingly. 4. Briefly stated common facts borne out of these case records are; the assessee is a society established on 03/05/1996. Pursuant to separate applications filed under amended provisions

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 266/PAN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed. In the event

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 260/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed. In the event

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 267/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed. In the event

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 268/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed. In the event

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 259/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed. In the event

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 265/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed. In the event