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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad238Mumbai196Chennai166Hyderabad165Delhi136Kolkata129Jaipur120Pune112Bangalore111Lucknow89Surat86Visakhapatnam77Patna66Rajkot64Indore52Chandigarh47Amritsar35Cochin30Raipur28Agra22Guwahati21Jabalpur18Nagpur16Allahabad12Cuttack11Dehradun9Jodhpur7Panaji7Varanasi4Ranchi4SC2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69A7Addition to Income6Section 143(3)5Cash Deposit5Condonation of Delay5Section 1474Natural Justice4Section 1313Unexplained Money

APPASAB RAMAPPA LINGAREDDI,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

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

ITA 375/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.375/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Appasab Ramappa Lingareddi, Vs Ito-Ward-1, 397,Satti, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . At Post-Satti Tal , Civil Hospital Road Athani, Belagavi-590001. Belagavi-591240, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan No. Ammpl5861G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144Section 69A

condoning the delay in filling the appeal before the CIT(A). 2 ITA. No.375 /PAN/2025 Appasab Ramappa Lingareddi.. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed the return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data analytics found that the assessee has made substantial cash deposits aggregating

M/S SADANAND BHAVAN,GOKAK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

3
Section 2502
Section 142(1)2
Section 692
ITA 49/PAN/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshalii T A. No.49/Pan/2026 (A.Y. 2013-14) M/S Sadanand Bhavan, The Income Tax Cts No. 3205 Opp. Bus Vs. Office Ward 1, Stand Road Gokak, Gokak, Karnataka -591307. Karnataka-591307. Pan .No.Aapfs8051G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in business of manufacturing and sale of karadant/sweet. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 18-03-2014 disclosing a total income of Rs.14,64,500/- subsequently, the case was selected

BHARAT HANCHINALE,CHIKODI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

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

ITA 219/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 219/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Bharat Hanchinale, Vs National Faceless 1081,Hanabar Galli, Assessment Centre, . Khadaklat, Chikodi, New Delhi-110003. Belgaum-591228. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aojph8149C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 69A

section 69A of the Act and made addition of unexplained credits of Rs.7,64,055/- and assessed the total income of Rs.8,89,915/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s144 of the Act dated 23.01.2025. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) find that there

MR ABHISHEK RAESH RAIKAR,MARGAO vs. ITO, WARD - 1, MARGAO

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

ITA 15/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) on 2 ITA. No. 15/PAN 2024. Abhishek Ramesh Raikar.. validity of issue of notice u/sec143(2) of the Act and also no sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided. And the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition

SUREKHA VISHNU PHADKE,VASCO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), PANAJI

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

ITA 228/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 5.08.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.8,43,680/-. Subsequently the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny and notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire

VISHWANATH BELLAD,GOKAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 61/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 061/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vishwanath Bellad No123, Godan Plot No. 494, Dalgi Gokak, Belgaum-591312 Pan : Bcapb0771N . . . . . . .Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr S B Gadadi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. 1067775179(1) Dt. 20/08/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 25/03/2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr S B Gadadi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 69A

condoned the delay and advanced for adjudication. 3. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is an individual and was identified as non-filer. Upon receipt of information from AIMS module that during the year assessee deposited special bank note [‘SBN’ hereinafter] worth ₹1,06,67,400/- into State Bank of India account, the Ld. AO reopened

SUNIL HANAMANT NAIKWAD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BELAGAVI

The appeal is ALLOWED as above

ITA 220/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Sunil Hanmantsa Naikwad 1156, Saraf Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum Pan:Abeph0397N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr JD Kalpavruksha [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 4

condone the delay and advanced for adjudication. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that; the 3. assessee is an individual, who did not file his return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Upon receipt of information that the assessee entered into share transactions on Multi-Commodity Exchange [for short ‘MCX’] of ₹1933.72Lakhs, the case