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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 248clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai168Karnataka102Mumbai82Delhi81Kolkata60Jaipur37Calcutta36Bangalore36Hyderabad28Pune27Chandigarh27Lucknow16Nagpur16Panaji15Raipur11Ahmedabad11Ranchi9Indore7Guwahati6Cuttack5Patna5Cochin4Amritsar3Rajkot3Dehradun3Agra2Surat2Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Varanasi1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 2505Addition to Income4Limitation/Time-bar4Section 40A(3)3Natural Justice3Disallowance3Section 69A2Section 250(6)2Section 234A

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 442/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

248 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the cross objection. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence

2
Section 271(1)(c)2
Condonation of Delay2

MOHAMMAD KASIF RAJA,MILIK TOLA, KHOKSA, BAISI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PURNEA, PURNEA

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

ITA 322/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 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. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 28.03.2024 is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 2. That the appellant was not provided a proper and reasonable opportunity

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

ITA 328/PAT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

ITA 329/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well

BINOD KUMAR KEDIA,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (4), SIWAN

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

ITA 72/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Binod Kumar Kedia,……………...…….…………Appellant S/O Latejeevan Ram Kedia, Marwari Mohalla, Gopalganj-841428, Bihar [Pan:Afhpk1798P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(4), Siwan Appearances By: Shri K.P. Jalan, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 148Section 250Section 50C

248/- minus Rs.9,57,752/- plus the returned income of Rs.1,77,290/). 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) disposed off the appeal vide order under section 250 dated 18.12.2018 with certain directions to the ld. Assessing Officer and when assessee filed in Form no. 35 only