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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad229Mumbai196Chennai166Hyderabad165Delhi136Kolkata126Jaipur119Pune112Bangalore111Lucknow89Surat86Visakhapatnam77Patna66Rajkot64Indore50Chandigarh47Amritsar35Raipur28Agra22Jabalpur18Cochin18Nagpur16Guwahati13Allahabad12Cuttack11Dehradun9Jodhpur7Panaji7Ranchi4Varanasi4SC2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69A142Section 148100Addition to Income87Section 14785Cash Deposit60Section 25053Section 14446Section 143(3)44Unexplained Money40

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2626/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 14,85,000/-by invoking provisions of section 69A

Showing 1–20 of 112 · Page 1 of 6

Section 142(1)34
Condonation of Delay30
Section 271(1)(c)28

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 1364/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

section 249(3) for CIT(A) to condone the delay. 17. The series of decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court and Hon'ble Pune Bench have condoned the delay by taking the pragmatic view. The Hon'ble Courts have always taken a view that the miscarriage of justice should be avoided. 18. In view of this

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 1365/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

section 249(3) for CIT(A) to condone the delay. 17. The series of decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court and Hon'ble Pune Bench have condoned the delay by taking the pragmatic view. The Hon'ble Courts have always taken a view that the miscarriage of justice should be avoided. 18. In view of this

TATYASAHEB NARAYAN LAGAD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

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

ITA 1587/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe
Section 143(2)Section 69A

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partner in partnership firm and earns income from profit share in partnership firm and other incomes such as interest, remuneration, rental income etc. He filed his return of income

GANGAGIRI MAHARAJ BETSARALA MAHILA NAGARI PATSANSTHA LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1418/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 144Section 250Section 5Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

condone the delay of 455 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on the information about cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period, assessee was served with notice u/s.142

UNUS ABDULGAFAR SHAIKH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 654/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

section 69A applies only when amounts are not recorded in books. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act 5. The reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B is invalid. as reassessment based on a search action in a third-party case falls under Sec. 153C, not Sec. 147. Grounds on merits 6. The AO made the addition

UNUS ABDULGAFAR SHAIKH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 655/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

section 69A applies only when amounts are not recorded in books. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act 5. The reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B is invalid. as reassessment based on a search action in a third-party case falls under Sec. 153C, not Sec. 147. Grounds on merits 6. The AO made the addition

UNUS ABDULGAFAR SHAIKH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 652/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

section 69A applies only when amounts are not recorded in books. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act 5. The reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B is invalid. as reassessment based on a search action in a third-party case falls under Sec. 153C, not Sec. 147. Grounds on merits 6. The AO made the addition

UNUS ABDULGAFAR SHAIKH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 653/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

section 69A applies only when amounts are not recorded in books. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act 5. The reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B is invalid. as reassessment based on a search action in a third-party case falls under Sec. 153C, not Sec. 147. Grounds on merits 6. The AO made the addition

MS DIAMOND ENTERPRISES,PARBHANI vs. ITO HINGOLI, PARBHANI

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

ITA 690/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

section 44AB of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.55,574/- u/s. 271B of the Act. 4. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 171 days along with a condonation application explaining that the said delay was due to negligence on the part of the Tax Consultant. However, Ld.CIT(A) / NFAC

MS DIAMOND ENTERPRISES,PARBHANI vs. ITO HINGOLI, PARBHANI

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

ITA 689/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

section 44AB of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.55,574/- u/s. 271B of the Act. 4. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 171 days along with a condonation application explaining that the said delay was due to negligence on the part of the Tax Consultant. However, Ld.CIT(A) / NFAC

MANOHAR WAMAN PANDAGALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), PUNE

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

ITA 1464/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Richa Gulati (Virtually)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 45

69A; (ii) Rs.21,45,000/- on account of undisclosed capital gain and (iii) Rs.75,896/- on account of interest income. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 755 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the said delay

VTP FOODS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7 (3), PUNE

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

ITA 2878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(2)

condonation of delay of 519 days in filing the appeal since there was reasonable cause on its part for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. 2] The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.50,99,000/- made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of cash deposit in the bank account

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 221/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 68

69A in place of Section 68 of the IT Act. Subject to this, the order of the AO is confirmed. Ground No. 2 is also dismissed.” 6. The very factual position continuous before us as well since the assessee has not been able to explain source of the impugned cash deposits. We thus upheld the impugned addition in light

DILIPCHAND SOBHAGCHAND CHOPDA,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

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

ITA 255/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

section 69A of the Act on account of assessee’s failure to provide the explanation about the transactions to the tune of Rs. 83,25,62,575/- which is much higher 2 ITA.No.255/PUN./2025 (Dilipchand Sobhagchand Chopda) to the turnover of Rs. 60,39,930/- declared in the original return filed by the assessee. Relying on the affidavit

FAKRODDIN DAWAL PATEL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

In the result both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1475/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1475/Pun/2024&1476/Pun/2024 धििाारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16& 2016-17 Fakroddin Dawal Patel, 9, D, Income Tax Officer, Latur Market Yard, Latur, Maharashtra-413512 Vs Pan No. Aqapp3436F Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 69A

section 148. It was not complied. The AO then issued various notices. According to the AO assessee had not submitted any submission hence AO made addition of Rs. 65,47,181/- u/s 69A of the Act in the Ex-party assessment order. 4.2) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which was delayed by 186 days. The Assessee gave

FAKRODDIN DAWAL PATEL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

In the result both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1476/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1475/Pun/2024&1476/Pun/2024 धििाारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16& 2016-17 Fakroddin Dawal Patel, 9, D, Income Tax Officer, Latur Market Yard, Latur, Maharashtra-413512 Vs Pan No. Aqapp3436F Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 69A

section 148. It was not complied. The AO then issued various notices. According to the AO assessee had not submitted any submission hence AO made addition of Rs. 65,47,181/- u/s 69A of the Act in the Ex-party assessment order. 4.2) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which was delayed by 186 days. The Assessee gave

ANITA MUKUND PUJARI,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

ITA 234/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri P.D. KudvaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

section 69A of the Act on account of assessee’s failure to provide the details/ documentary evidence relating to cash deposit of Rs. 16,28,500/-. He submitted that the non-compliance before the Ld. AO was not intentional but has resulted due to the reason that the notice(s) 2 ITA.No.234/PUN./2025 (Anita Mukund Pujar) were issued

BALASAHEB GANPAT JARE,BEED vs. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2324/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

Section 249 of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of Sales and Purchase of Food grains oil seeds under the name & style “Jare Traders

BALASAHEB GANPAT JARE,BEED vs. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2325/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

Section 249 of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of Sales and Purchase of Food grains oil seeds under the name & style “Jare Traders