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.

67 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 24clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,135Delhi983Mumbai955Kolkata730Bangalore481Pune378Hyderabad356Ahmedabad353Jaipur353Karnataka186Chandigarh177Nagpur143Indore126Surat118Raipur111Amritsar110Lucknow95Visakhapatnam93Cochin82Cuttack78Rajkot70Panaji67Patna56Calcutta49SC34Telangana27Guwahati25Allahabad17Agra16Jabalpur16Jodhpur14Varanasi14Rajasthan7Orissa6Dehradun6Ranchi6Kerala5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 234E90Condonation of Delay58Section 200A50Section 24940Section 14433Section 246A30Section 253(1)28Section 25026Penalty

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)

section 253 of the Act, are subject to satisfying fourfold pre-requirement which are dilated as; (i) the delay is to be supported by an application/petition and (ii) the delay also is to be supported by an affidavit explaining reasons behind such delay and (iii) such reason stated in affidavit must form ‘sufficient cause’ for delay requested for condonation

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

20
Section 153A19
Limitation/Time-bar18
Addition to Income14

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)

section 253 of the Act, are subject to satisfying fourfold pre-requirement which are dilated as; (i) the delay is to be supported by an application/petition and (ii) the delay also is to be supported by an affidavit explaining reasons behind such delay and (iii) such reason stated in affidavit must form ‘sufficient cause’ for delay requested for condonation

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)

section 253 of the Act, are subject to satisfying fourfold pre-requirement which are dilated as; (i) the delay is to be supported by an application/petition and (ii) the delay also is to be supported by an affidavit explaining reasons behind such delay and (iii) such reason stated in affidavit must form ‘sufficient cause’ for delay requested for condonation

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)

section 253 of the Act, are subject to satisfying fourfold pre-requirement which are dilated as; (i) the delay is to be supported by an application/petition and (ii) the delay also is to be supported by an affidavit explaining reasons behind such delay and (iii) such reason stated in affidavit must form ‘sufficient cause’ for delay requested for condonation

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 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 24 of 34 Leo Deniz Vs DCIT ITA No. 150/PAN/2024 AY: 2016-17 24. Thus, in all the years under consideration it was well within the knowledge of appellant that, the return of income for the year under consideration was subjected to scrutiny and document necessary for proving exemption claim was called

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)

24 (supra) to adjudicate the limited issue of delay on the basis of submissions / materials already placed on records. Noting the same, we advanced accordingly. ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 3. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical and since

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)

24 (supra) to adjudicate the limited issue of delay on the basis of submissions / materials already placed on records. Noting the same, we advanced accordingly. ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 3. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical and since

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)

24 (supra) to adjudicate the limited issue of delay on the basis of submissions / materials already placed on records. Noting the same, we advanced accordingly. ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 3. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical and since

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)

section 253 of the Act and such reasons precisely are (a) unawareness of passing of impugned orders and (b) appellant’s pre-occupation with large scale corporate restructuring (merger) and consequential post synergic consolidation & synchronisation of all its operation including tax- management etc. To fuel that former twin reasons clearly forms a ‘sufficient cause’ thus qualifies for delay condonation

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)

section 253 of the Act and such reasons precisely are (a) unawareness of passing of impugned orders and (b) appellant’s pre-occupation with large scale corporate restructuring (merger) and consequential post synergic consolidation & synchronisation of all its operation including tax- management etc. To fuel that former twin reasons clearly forms a ‘sufficient cause’ thus qualifies for delay condonation

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)

section 253 of the Act and such reasons precisely are (a) unawareness of passing of impugned orders and (b) appellant’s pre-occupation with large scale corporate restructuring (merger) and consequential post synergic consolidation & synchronisation of all its operation including tax- management etc. To fuel that former twin reasons clearly forms a ‘sufficient cause’ thus qualifies for delay condonation

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)

condonation. 24. In the instant appeals, the gross delay of 8 to 9 years (5 to 6 years after considering displacement of spouse for three years) days is claimed to have been occurred owning to; (a) non-intimation or delayed intimation assessment/penalty orders and (b) displacement of working staff & consultant etc. finds no strength in view of contradictory material placed

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

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 262/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)

condonation. 24. In the instant appeals, the gross delay of 8 to 9 years (5 to 6 years after considering displacement of spouse for three years) days is claimed to have been occurred owning to; (a) non-intimation or delayed intimation assessment/penalty orders and (b) displacement of working staff & consultant etc. finds no strength in view of contradictory material placed

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

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 261/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)

condonation. 24. In the instant appeals, the gross delay of 8 to 9 years (5 to 6 years after considering displacement of spouse for three years) days is claimed to have been occurred owning to; (a) non-intimation or delayed intimation assessment/penalty orders and (b) displacement of working staff & consultant etc. finds no strength in view of contradictory material placed

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

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 264/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)

condonation. 24. In the instant appeals, the gross delay of 8 to 9 years (5 to 6 years after considering displacement of spouse for three years) days is claimed to have been occurred owning to; (a) non-intimation or delayed intimation assessment/penalty orders and (b) displacement of working staff & consultant etc. finds no strength in view of contradictory material placed

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)

condonation. 24. In the instant appeals, the gross delay of 8 to 9 years (5 to 6 years after considering displacement of spouse for three years) days is claimed to have been occurred owning to; (a) non-intimation or delayed intimation assessment/penalty orders and (b) displacement of working staff & consultant etc. finds no strength in view of contradictory material placed

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)

condonation. 24. In the instant appeals, the gross delay of 8 to 9 years (5 to 6 years after considering displacement of spouse for three years) days is claimed to have been occurred owning to; (a) non-intimation or delayed intimation assessment/penalty orders and (b) displacement of working staff & consultant etc. finds no strength in view of contradictory material placed

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)

condonation. 24. In the instant appeals, the gross delay of 8 to 9 years (5 to 6 years after considering displacement of spouse for three years) days is claimed to have been occurred owning to; (a) non-intimation or delayed intimation assessment/penalty orders and (b) displacement of working staff & consultant etc. finds no strength in view of contradictory material placed

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)

condonation. 24. In the instant appeals, the gross delay of 8 to 9 years (5 to 6 years after considering displacement of spouse for three years) days is claimed to have been occurred owning to; (a) non-intimation or delayed intimation assessment/penalty orders and (b) displacement of working staff & consultant etc. finds no strength in view of contradictory material placed

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)

condonation. 24. In the instant appeals, the gross delay of 8 to 9 years (5 to 6 years after considering displacement of spouse for three years) days is claimed to have been occurred owning to; (a) non-intimation or delayed intimation assessment/penalty orders and (b) displacement of working staff & consultant etc. finds no strength in view of contradictory material placed