BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

135 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai306Jaipur189Ahmedabad179Delhi174Chennai161Pune135Surat122Kolkata121Hyderabad112Indore108Bangalore91Rajkot61Chandigarh50Nagpur47Cochin39Amritsar39Lucknow34Patna30Visakhapatnam26Cuttack25Guwahati24Agra22Raipur19Panaji13Jabalpur11Ranchi10Allahabad9Dehradun6Jodhpur6Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)134Addition to Income84Penalty76Section 25059Section 14853Section 14748Section 14434Section 142(1)26Limitation/Time-bar

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.12,24,938/- levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2010-11. 2. The assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 88 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation

Showing 1–20 of 135 · Page 1 of 7

26
Section 153A24
Section 143(2)24
Condonation of Delay23

ASHOK GURUNATH PATIL,LATUR vs. ITO WARD1(1), LATUR, LATUR

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

ITA 594/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.594/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Ashok Gurunath Patil, Ito, Ward 1(1), Latur A/P Masobavadi, Khed, Nilanga, Latur-413522 Vs. Maharashtra Pan-Bihpp0618K अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pratik Sandbhor Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 24-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.08.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 27.02.2018. 2. Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 123 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Has Been Filed & Placed At Page No. 24-26 Of The Appeal Citing The Main Reason For The Delay, That The Assessee Was Not Aware Of Passing Of The Impugned Order As 2 The Tax Consultant Registered The E-Mail Id Of His Younger Son & The E-Mail Account Was Not In Use. After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative (Dr) & Perusing The Records We Find That The Sufficient Cause Prevented The Assessee From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit & The Delay Is Not Intentional. Therefore In The Larger Interest Of Justice & Also Placing Reliance On The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others(1987) 167 Itr 471(Sc) (Supreme Court) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Dated 21.03.2025 (2025) Insc 382) We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 123 Days & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.02.2018. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 123 days in filing of the appeal. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit has been filed and placed at Page No. 24-26 of the appeal citing the main reason for the delay, that the assessee was not aware

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1817/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

PRATAP WAMAN KHANDEBHARAD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1789/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1816/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1815/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1818/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1804/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each of the appeal. Assessees have filed applications for condonation

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each of the appeal. Assessees have filed applications for condonation

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each of the appeal. Assessees have filed applications for condonation

MR. ANIL ANANDA POKHARNIKAR ,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(3) , PUNE

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

ITA 356/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MunotFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, failing to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the correct legal position in its proper perspective, and without adjudicating on the grounds of appeal and submissions put forth by the appellant and in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the order void ab-inito, perverse and band

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 2 ITA No.59/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in family business of agriculture. For A.Y. 2018- 19, the assessee did not file his return of income. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by Ld. AO. Ground 2: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Leamed CITIA), ered in not condoning the delay

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by Ld. AO. Ground 2: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Leamed CITIA), ered in not condoning the delay

MAHESH VISHWANATH BHOIR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

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

ITA 1813/PUN/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1813 & 1814/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mahesh Vishwanath Bhoir, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune. 3Rd Floor, Bhoir Building, Keshav Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 410033. Pan : Aihpb9631K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: These Appeals Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 10.07.2024 Which Are Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed On 29.01.2014 U/S 144 & Penalty Order Framed On 17.07.2024 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay of 1285 days in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC both against the quantum addition as well as penalty levied u/s 271

MAHESH VISHWANATH BHOIR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

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

ITA 1814/PUN/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1813 & 1814/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mahesh Vishwanath Bhoir, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune. 3Rd Floor, Bhoir Building, Keshav Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 410033. Pan : Aihpb9631K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: These Appeals Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 10.07.2024 Which Are Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed On 29.01.2014 U/S 144 & Penalty Order Framed On 17.07.2024 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay of 1285 days in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC both against the quantum addition as well as penalty levied u/s 271

MR. GANESH AYODHYAPRASAD JAISWAL ,NANDED vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 731/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

delay. After considering the contents of the condonation applications filed along with affidavits and after hearing the Ld. DR, adjudication. 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied u/s 271

MR. GANESH AYODHYAPRASAD JAISWAL ,NANDED vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 732/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

delay. After considering the contents of the condonation applications filed along with affidavits and after hearing the Ld. DR, adjudication. 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied u/s 271

MR. GANESH AYODHYAPRASAD JAISWAL,NANDED vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD, NANDED

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 729/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

delay. After considering the contents of the condonation applications filed along with affidavits and after hearing the Ld. DR, adjudication. 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied u/s 271