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 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata159Mumbai152Delhi117Karnataka101Chennai82Bangalore75Jaipur72Ahmedabad66Pune61Surat61Cochin47Hyderabad47Visakhapatnam39Indore24Chandigarh23Cuttack17Lucknow16Ranchi12Amritsar11Agra11Rajkot11Calcutta10Raipur10Guwahati6Patna5Nagpur5Allahabad5Jabalpur4Varanasi3Telangana2Dehradun2Jodhpur2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1SC1

Key Topics

Section 142(1)7Section 1477Section 2505Section 2745Section 1484Addition to Income4Penalty4Section 143(3)3Limitation/Time-bar3

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

274 read with Section 270A of the Act. The Petitioner had received a notice dated 22.04.2021 for Assessment Year 2018-2019 calling upon to show cause as to why assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. The Petitioner was to submit its response by 23:59 hours of 24.04.2021. On 23.04.2021, the Petitioner filed its response

Cash Deposit3
Natural Justice3
Section 143(2)2

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 181/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

274 read with Section 270A of the Act. The Petitioner had received a notice dated 22.04.2021 for Assessment Year 2018-2019 calling upon to show cause as to why assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. The Petitioner was to submit its response by 23:59 hours of 24.04.2021. On 23.04.2021, the Petitioner filed its response

SATYA PRAKASH,SARWAN BAZAR, BARACHATTI, GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2), GAYA, RAI KASHI NATH CHOWK, GAYA, BIHAR

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

ITA 136/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 136/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Satya Prakash,..………….……….………..………Appellant Sarwan Bazar, Barachatti, Gaya-824201, Bihar [Pan:Agipp4571B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Ward-3(2), Gaya, Rai Kashi Nath Chowk, Gaya-823001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Kumar Kartik, 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 143(3)

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual, who e-filed his return of income on 25.02.2016 for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.4,15,730/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,54,382/- under Chapter VIA. The assessee derives income from trading of fertilizers, seeds in the name

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

274 r.w.s 271(1) (c) & 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 is arbitrary, unjustified, void, ab-initio and bad in laws. 9) For That the appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 2. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee

SMT NEELAM KUMARI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/PAT/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.S. Godara Hon’Ble] Assessment Year: 2004-05 Smt. Neelam Kumari..............................……………………………………................................Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna – 800 001. [Pan: Afzpk 6823 P] Acit, Central Circle -3, Patna ..…………………………………………................................Respondent Patna. Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Inderjit Singh, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 22, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order September 22, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Patna, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 30/04/2019, For The Assessment Year 2004-05, Wherein, He Confirmed The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, By The Assessing Officer . 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 25 Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 2 ITA. No. 200/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Smt. Neelam Kumari 3. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dt. 27/12/2011, did not specify the charges against which the penalty was sought to be imposed. The penalty imposed in pursuance