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.

126 results for “condonation of delay”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai948Mumbai598Delhi518Hyderabad509Ahmedabad447Pune412Kolkata392Bangalore345Jaipur255Chandigarh240Amritsar187Cochin171Visakhapatnam169Surat166Indore139Lucknow129Patna126Raipur113Rajkot104Agra87Cuttack81Nagpur71Panaji62Calcutta37Allahabad34Jabalpur31Jodhpur30Guwahati25Karnataka23Varanasi20Dehradun10Ranchi7SC5Telangana3

Key Topics

Section 25094Addition to Income77Cash Deposit75Section 69A63Section 14455Condonation of Delay52Limitation/Time-bar51Section 14750Section 142(1)

RAM KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, 3(5), SAHARSA

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

ITA 464/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

cash has been deposited in PNB during the demonetization period. The department wrongly and arbitrarily quantified the amount of deposits as depicted in the Assessment Order. The provision of section 69A is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 17,25,000/- as made / sustained is arbitrary, unjustified, void ab-initio

PRAKASH GUPTA,GOPALGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (4), SIWAN

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

Showing 1–20 of 126 · Page 1 of 7

43
Demonetization43
Section 14839
Natural Justice30
ITA 206/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

condonation of delay, however a submission stated to be an affidavit I.T.A. No.: 206/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakash Gupta. has been filed in which it is stated that during the demonetisation period, total sum of ₹ 10,69,000/- was deposited into the SBI account and the cash

SMT. RANJU KUMARI,JAMUI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (5), LAKHISARAI

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

ITA 339/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

condoning the delay in filing the appeal and also passing an ex-parte order without allowing proper opportunity of being heard thereby confirming the addition u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 2,62,77,730/- for alleged unexplained cash deposited

M/S PARWATI EDUCATIONAL & WELFARE TRUST,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 44/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. That the Hon'ble PCIT, Patna erred in appreciating the facts properly. 2. That the Hon'ble PCIT erred in treating the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer

M/S PARWATI EDUCATIONAL & WELFARE TRUST,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 45/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. That the Hon'ble PCIT, Patna erred in appreciating the facts properly. 2. That the Hon'ble PCIT erred in treating the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer

ARPANA JHA,BETTIAH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), BETTIAH, BETTIAH

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

ITA 135/PAT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 135/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arpana Jha,……………….……….………..………Appellant C/O. Namo Nath Jha, Banuchhapar, Sant Kabir Road, Near K.P.M. School, Bihar-845438 [Pan:Ahmpj6389G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Ward-1(5), Bettiah Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and she is proprietor of Aparna Textile Agency and involved in trading as well as authorized agent of M/s Shera Hoseiry. The assessee has not filed return of income for the year under consideration. The case of the assessee has been reopened to verify

AMAR NATH SINGH,ARA vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 460/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: The Itat. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Given Explanation Which Is As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(5)

condone the delay and the appeal is taking for adjudication. 3 Amar Nath Singh 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 04.01.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 5,03,010/- as per information with the income tax department. The assessee had deposited cash

ANIL KUMAR SAH,BANKA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

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

ITA 324/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143Section 143(1)

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income on 10.12.2015 showing total income of Rs.2.88,040/-. The assessee has shown his income from LIC commission, New India Insurance Company & interest income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T Act. 1961. Later the case

ARJUN KUMAR SAH,VAISHALI vs. ITO WARD- 1(3), VAISHALI

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

ITA 238/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 250Section 5Section 69A

cash deposited in Indusind Bank of Rs. 75,78,167/- other than demonetization as an unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee. Before the ld. AO there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AO has added the income

ASIF IQUBAL,SIWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), SIWAN

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

ITA 315/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether ITO WARD 2(3), SIWAN was justified in treating the deposits during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A without looking into the debit entries in the account and transaction in the previous

SAVITRI DEVI,BHOJPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 571/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 68

cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and the total income was assessed at ₹1,28,82,750/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who did not condone the delay of 230 days in filing of the appeal and dismissed the appeal

SIDDHI GUPTA,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 355 & 356/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Siddhi Gupta,…………………..…………....……Appellant S/O. Gopal Prasad Gupta, Masjid Road, Near Rath, Durga Chowk, Obra, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar [Pan:Aufps5370G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, Near Block More, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

delay is condoned in both the appeals. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who earns income from trading of food grains. The assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 and was supposed to file his return on due date. During the course of demonetization, the assessee deposited Rs.12

SIDDHI GUPTA,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 355 & 356/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Siddhi Gupta,…………………..…………....……Appellant S/O. Gopal Prasad Gupta, Masjid Road, Near Rath, Durga Chowk, Obra, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar [Pan:Aufps5370G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, Near Block More, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

delay is condoned in both the appeals. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who earns income from trading of food grains. The assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 and was supposed to file his return on due date. During the course of demonetization, the assessee deposited Rs.12

LALBABU PRASAD,SITAMARHI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, DARBHANGA, DARBHANGA

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

ITA 438/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the order passed by the authorities below are bad in law and fact. 2. For that the learned Addl. CIT(Appeal) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte only

SANJAY KUMAR ALIAS SANJAY KR. YADAV vs. DCIT,

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

ITA 79/PAT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am Sanjay Kumar Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Patna Alias Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Prop. Hotel Palika & Wine Shop, Goria Toli, Station Road, Patna स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Afypk 5085 L निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Inderjit Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Inderjit Singh, CIT-DR
Section 144

condone the delay and appeal is heard finally. 2 3. The assessee in this appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal :- (I) For that the learned CIT (A) has not been justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,45,788/- on account of the income from short term capital gain . (II) For that the learned

MANOJ KUMAR YADAV,SIWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), SIWAN

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

ITA 439/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in calculation

RANI DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

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

ITA 308/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69ASection 80C

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who is running a wholesale business as her proprietorship concern in the name of M/s. Gwalior Industries. The assessee filed her return of income electronically showing aggregate income of Rs.6,48,570/-. The case was selected

JITENDRA KUMAR RAY,LALGANJ, HAJIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) VAISHALI, HAJIPUR

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

ITA 344/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 256 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2026 stating the reasons for not filing appeal within the due date which is as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to

For Respondent: Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 253Section 274Section 69

condone the delay in filling the appeal and taking for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during financial year 2014-15 the assessee had deposited cash

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication, with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed

KANHAIYA KUMAR,NAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), BIHARSHARIF

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

ITA 560/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.560/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

cash deposit during demonetization period which was subject matter of limited scrutiny. 5. For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.59,62,478/- without giving due credit of withdrawals made from the very same bank account which inter alia include payment to suppliers against purchases. 6. For that the sustenance of additions