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.

142 results for “condonation of delay”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai544Kolkata371Mumbai333Delhi312Hyderabad242Ahmedabad231Bangalore155Jaipur145Pune142Surat97Visakhapatnam77Chandigarh68Rajkot59Cochin58Indore54Patna52Lucknow52Raipur41Calcutta38Panaji33Nagpur32Amritsar28Agra24Cuttack17Guwahati14Jabalpur12Allahabad10Dehradun6Jodhpur6Varanasi5Ranchi1SC1Orissa1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 69A110Addition to Income82Section 14880Unexplained Money63Section 143(3)62Cash Deposit61Section 14760Section 25055Section 14450

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

unexplained money. 23.It is submitted that given the fresh opportunity the appellant can explain the source of money deposited. She is carrying business only on commission basis. The section 69A cannot be invoked in the facts of the case. 24. Reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DN Singh vs. CIT, Central

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...
Section 142(1)38
Condonation of Delay36
Section 6833

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

unexplained money. 23.It is submitted that given the fresh opportunity the appellant can explain the source of money deposited. She is carrying business only on commission basis. The section 69A cannot be invoked in the facts of the case. 24. Reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DN Singh vs. CIT, Central

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)

unexplained money u/s 69A on the ground that the appellant credit society was not legally permitted to accept SBNs from its members during demonetization period without appreciating that the said addition was not justified in law and on facts. 2 2] The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that assuming without admitting that the assessee credit society

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

ITA 2112/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Nemin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

condoning the delay in filing appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 2-On the basis of facts and circumstances and in law, the reassessment proceedings upheld by the Learned CIT(A) against the appellant is time barred and hence ought to be quashed. Ground 3- Without prejudice to Ground

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

ITA 2113/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Nemin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

condoning the delay in filing appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 2-On the basis of facts and circumstances and in law, the reassessment proceedings upheld by the Learned CIT(A) against the appellant is time barred and hence ought to be quashed. Ground 3- Without prejudice to Ground

CHANDRABHAN SURYABHAN SHINE,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 1970/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukul Kulkarni (virtually)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and Rs.76,00,767/- on account of undisclosed long term capital gain and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.96,74,217/- in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3 5. Since there was a delay of 143 days in filing of the appeal before

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

unexplained money under 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

MR RAMANATH BAJPAI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 218/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.218/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. Ramanath Bajpai, Vs. Ito, Ward-4(4), Pune. B.No.5, S.No.245, Anant Co-Op Housing Society, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Ailpb5763E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Gopal Aswani Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 44 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. The Relevant Portion Of The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Is Reproduced Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri Gopal AswaniFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed with a delay of 118 days before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning

SEVABHAVI BRAMNAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT RAVTALE CHIPLU,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

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

ITA 2784/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2784/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ward-1, Ratnagiri Ravtale Chiplu, Burumtali Chiplun, Ratnagiri – 415605, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra Pan : Aadas7630J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 69A

unexplained money in the hands of assessee u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 25.09.2023, however ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay

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

unexplained money under 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

PRAKASH SHRIPAL CHAVAN,SANGLI vs. ITO, WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

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

ITA 580/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.580/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Prakash Shripal Chavan, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sangli. 1 Stand Road, Samdoli Sangli, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Ajlpc0555E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Not Condoning The Delay When There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Delay May Kindly Be Condoned & The Appeal May Kindly Be Decided On Merits.” 3. The Facts, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & No Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139 Of The It Act

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

delay may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be decided on merits.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and no return of income under the provisions of section 139 of the IT Act 2 was filed for the assessment year under consideration. A notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2021 and duly

CHHABABAI MARUTI GADUTE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

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

ITA 1975/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69

unexplained money. The assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the IT Act was completed ex-parte since the assessee did not participated in the assessment proceedings. 3 3. Since the first appeal was filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 24 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the same without condoning

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)

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an AOP and engaged in agricultural activities. It filed its return of income on 20.10.2017 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the norms of CASS. Accordingly statutory notices

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

unexplained income. The A.O. did not possess any information and he has presumed the income is unreported. Nowhere in the order has the A.O. proven that the due to the credits in the said account mentioned, the appellant has derived any gains. Thus, the order is bad in law and may please be quashed. 3. The section 69A states that

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

unexplained income. The A.O. did not possess any information and he has presumed the income is unreported. Nowhere in the order has the A.O. proven that the due to the credits in the said account mentioned, the appellant has derived any gains. Thus, the order is bad in law and may please be quashed. 3. The section 69A states that

CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 93/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

unexplained investments within the meaning of section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (f) On perusal of the Bank Account statement of the assessee viz., Kotak Bank, it is seen that there is cash deposit of Rs.35,00,000/- during the demonetization period. Since the assessee failed to furnish the source of the cash deposit, an amount of Rs.35

SWATI BALASAHEBPUKALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-6(1), PUNE

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

ITA 2093/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 69A

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of money lending that primarily cover lending to the people belonging to low income groups and such loans are financed by taking borrowings from Federal Bank

NILESH HIMMATRAO PATIL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant trust stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1586/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1586/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nilesh Himmatrao Patil, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), 301, Ujjwal Liberty, Pune Lane No.30/31, Ganesh Nagar, Dhayari B.O., Pune 411 041 Maharashtra Pan : Ardpp6570E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

unexplained money. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal on the 3 ground that the appellant had filed the appeal against the notice for outstanding demand and has requested for condonation of delay

BALAJI GRAMIN SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2141/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2141/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Balaji Gramin Sahkari Pat Vs Ito, Ward Sanstha Maryadit, 1 Kodoli 1(5), Kolhapur Shivaji Chouk Panhala, Kolhapur-416201 Maharashtra Pan-Aabab9500E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: M/s. Shilpa N.C
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) even though sufficient cause was demonstrated beyond doubt. 2. Whether CIT (A), NFAC is correct in dismissing the case limine without going into the merits 2 3. The impugned notice under section 148 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer, which is outside the faceless mechanism as provided under

SUNITA MOHAN PATIL,NASHIK vs. ACIT 1, NASHIK

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

ITA 939/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi
Section 5

condone the delay of 109 days and proceed for adjudication of the appeal. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed. Based on the information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that