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.

21 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Surat33Cochin29Bangalore27Mumbai22Karnataka21Pune21Delhi21Chennai19Jaipur17Kolkata14Ahmedabad12Hyderabad12Lucknow10Chandigarh8Nagpur8Indore6Jodhpur5Cuttack5Visakhapatnam4Jabalpur3Calcutta3Amritsar2Raipur1Rajkot1Guwahati1Varanasi1Patna1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)50Section 142(1)42Section 272A(2)(k)38Section 271F27Penalty21Section 273B20Limitation/Time-bar13Section 13210Search & Seizure10

NISAR MEHBOOB ALAM KHAN,,AURANGABAD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2026/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2026/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nisar Mehboob Alam Khan N K Construction, Plot No.22, Motiwala Nagar, Opp. Mgm Hospital, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad …. Pan: Akgpk5798P Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tds Range, Nashik

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Sabana Parveen
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

delay in filing TDS returns late but the taxes were paid along with interest upto date; in such circumstances, applicability of provisions of section 273B of the Act. We find merit in the plea of assessee, wherein under section 273B of the Act, if the assessee established its case of reasonable cause, which had resulted in failure of assessee

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

Section 153C9
Section 272A8
TDS8

DIRECTOR, VJNT OBC & SBC WELFARE, MS, PUNE,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 906/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.906/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 2(31)Section 272(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

273B of the Act do not cover the defaults under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance to the provisions

M/S. L.N. KUNJIR,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1050/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1050/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. L.B. Kunjir, 52/1, Swanand Building, Shri Ram Hsg. Society, Chandan Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabfl9816E Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (Tds) Range, Pune

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 192Section 198Section 199Section 200Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

delay in uploading the requisite return i.e. TDS statement with the Department, hence there was default in compliance with the same. However, taxes were paid in time. Hence, there was no merit in levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The said plea of assessee was not accepted and the Assessing Officer has levied penalty

MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN,,PARBHANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS) RANGE -NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2410/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Works Division, Parbhani-431 401 Tan : Nskm04669A .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)

273B of the Act do not cover the defaults under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance to the provisions

DEPUTY COLLECTOR OFFICE,,UDGIR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.319/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : - Deputy Collector Office, The Jcit, Tds, Range, Main Road, Udgir, Tq.Udgir, Vs Nashik. Dist.Latur - 413517. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad Arising Out Of Assessing Officer’S Order Section 272A(2)(K) R.W.S 200(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2018. 2. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Levy Of Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 05/02/2014 Levied Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K) Of The Act For Delay In Filling Quarterly Statements Of Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) U/S.200(3) Of The Act.

Section 192Section 198Section 199Section 200Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

273B of the Act do not cover the defaults under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. ITA No.319/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 Deputy Collector Office Vs. JCIT, TDS, Range, Nashik (A) 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea

PRAVIN CHATARBHUJ BAJAJ,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 933/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.933/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pravin Chatarbhuj Bajaj, M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers, Plot No.F-68, Midc Area, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adhpb0700E Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (Tds) Range, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 192Section 198Section 199Section 200Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

delay of 455 days in filing the said quarterly return and hence, the proceedings under section 200(3) of the Act were initiated holding the assessee to be liable for levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) / 274 r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act at Rs.45,500/-. 6. The plea of assessee before us is that he had reasonable

M/S. R.R.KAPOOR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 592/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.592/Pun/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

condoned and the instant appeal is 2 M/s. R.R. Kapoor admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated

VIBHAV DILIP METHA,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO, WRD-2, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2074/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2074/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

section 273B of the Act comes to the rescue of the assessee as the assessee has successfully demonstrated that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented him from complying to the notices issued u/s.142(1). I therefore, set aside the impugned order and delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act at Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

RAMDAS DHANAJI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 457/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

273B. The latter section provides that penalty under various sections, including section 271(1)(b), may be deleted where a ‘reasonable cause’ is established for failure to comply. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find that the assessee had a ‘reasonable cause’ of the prevalence of covid-19 pandemic for not complying with the requirements

RAMDAS DHANAJI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 453/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

273B. The latter section provides that penalty under various sections, including section 271(1)(b), may be deleted where a ‘reasonable cause’ is established for failure to comply. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find that the assessee had a ‘reasonable cause’ of the prevalence of covid-19 pandemic for not complying with the requirements

RAMDAS DHANAJI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 450/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

273B. The latter section provides that penalty under various sections, including section 271(1)(b), may be deleted where a ‘reasonable cause’ is established for failure to comply. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find that the assessee had a ‘reasonable cause’ of the prevalence of covid-19 pandemic for not complying with the requirements

RAMDAS DHANAJI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 454/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

273B. The latter section provides that penalty under various sections, including section 271(1)(b), may be deleted where a ‘reasonable cause’ is established for failure to comply. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find that the assessee had a ‘reasonable cause’ of the prevalence of covid-19 pandemic for not complying with the requirements

RAMDAS DHANAJI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 452/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

273B. The latter section provides that penalty under various sections, including section 271(1)(b), may be deleted where a ‘reasonable cause’ is established for failure to comply. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find that the assessee had a ‘reasonable cause’ of the prevalence of covid-19 pandemic for not complying with the requirements

RAMDAS DHANAJI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 451/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

273B. The latter section provides that penalty under various sections, including section 271(1)(b), may be deleted where a ‘reasonable cause’ is established for failure to comply. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find that the assessee had a ‘reasonable cause’ of the prevalence of covid-19 pandemic for not complying with the requirements

RAMDAS DHANAJI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 455/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

273B. The latter section provides that penalty under various sections, including section 271(1)(b), may be deleted where a ‘reasonable cause’ is established for failure to comply. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find that the assessee had a ‘reasonable cause’ of the prevalence of covid-19 pandemic for not complying with the requirements

RAMDAS DHANAJI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 449/PUN/2021[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

273B. The latter section provides that penalty under various sections, including section 271(1)(b), may be deleted where a ‘reasonable cause’ is established for failure to comply. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find that the assessee had a ‘reasonable cause’ of the prevalence of covid-19 pandemic for not complying with the requirements

RAMDAS CHABAJI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 456/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

273B. The latter section provides that penalty under various sections, including section 271(1)(b), may be deleted where a ‘reasonable cause’ is established for failure to comply. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find that the assessee had a ‘reasonable cause’ of the prevalence of covid-19 pandemic for not complying with the requirements

RAJRSHI SHAHU NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT KURUNDWAD,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

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

ITA 1956/PUN/2025[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

condone the delay of 930 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The sole grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.40,000/- levied u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act @ Rs.10,000/- for each non-appearance on the dates of hearing fixed during the course of penalty proceedings

VAIBHAV DILIP METHA,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

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

ITA 2075/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

delay in filing the appeal. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices u/s.142(1) of the Act on which the impugned penalty has been levied for non compliance were issued during covid-19 pandemic restrictions and therefore the same deserved to be deleted considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court on the limitation Cognizance for Extension

FINANCE DEPARTMENT ZILHA PARISHAD,,LATUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 586/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

condonation of such delay and therefore, the penalty u/s 272A clause (2) sub-clause (k) was confirmed. 6. Before us also, none appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. From the office records it is clear that the notice was served on the registered address given by the assessee. 7. We have perused the material on record