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.

278 results for “condonation of delay”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,760Mumbai1,641Delhi1,317Kolkata849Ahmedabad757Bangalore737Pune650Jaipur525Hyderabad490Chandigarh327Patna301Surat286Indore280Raipur278Visakhapatnam236Amritsar233Lucknow201Karnataka199Cuttack197Rajkot184Nagpur171Agra161Panaji157Cochin146Calcutta82Jodhpur58Guwahati50Dehradun42Jabalpur36Allahabad29Ranchi28SC24Telangana22Varanasi20Rajasthan6Kerala5Himachal Pradesh4Orissa4Andhra Pradesh2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)95Addition to Income80Section 143(3)63TDS54Section 249(3)41Limitation/Time-bar40Natural Justice38Disallowance34Condonation of Delay

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 226/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Second Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

justice would not be served by condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

Showing 1–20 of 278 · Page 1 of 14

...
32
Deduction32
Section 14729
Section 6828

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 229/RPR/2023[2015-16 (First Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

justice would not be served by condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 230/RPR/2023[2015-16 (Second Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

justice would not be served by condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 228/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Fourth Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

justice would not be served by condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 227/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Third Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

justice would not be served by condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 231/RPR/2023[2016-17 (First Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

justice would not be served by condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 237/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

natural justice for bonafide reasons stated above. By condoning the delay, the Hon'ble ITAT would definitely confer substantial justice

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 238/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

natural justice for bonafide reasons stated above. By condoning the delay, the Hon'ble ITAT would definitely confer substantial justice

RAMESHWAR THAKUR,DALLI RAJHARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 21/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.21/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rameshwar Thakur Bharitola, Chipara, Dalli Rajhara (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Adzpt6030H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Akansha Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

natural justice by not allowing proper opportunity of being heard. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in condoning the delay

MICKEY SHRIVASTVA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194C(5)Section 253Section 40a

justice. In view of the above, we condone the delay and appeal is admitted for hearing. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That, the Order of the learned Assessing Officer is bad in law and facts, therefore, the additions/disallowances made to be deleted. 2. That the Order of the learned Assessing Officer is based

BINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR ERSTW. ITO-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 587/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.587/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Binod Kumar Agrawal H-401 Maruti Lifestyle, Kota Road, Mohaba Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aefpa4168Q

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 304 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. Further as evident from Para

SHYAM KUMAR NETAM, MAHASAMUND,MAHASAMUND vs. ACIT, MAHASAMUND

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

ITA 375/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.374, 375 & 376/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Shyam Kumar Netam Rajasevaiya Pithoura, Ward No.3, Mahasamund-493 551 (C.G.) Pan: Apspn2061H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 395 days involved in the captioned appeals is condoned and appeals are heard on merits. 7. That

SHYAM KUMAR NETAM, MAHASAMUND,MAHASAMUND vs. ACIT, MAHASAMUND

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

ITA 376/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.374, 375 & 376/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Shyam Kumar Netam Rajasevaiya Pithoura, Ward No.3, Mahasamund-493 551 (C.G.) Pan: Apspn2061H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 395 days involved in the captioned appeals is condoned and appeals are heard on merits. 7. That

SHYAM KUMAR NETAM, MAHASAMUND,MAHASAMUND vs. ACIT, MAHASAMUND

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

ITA 374/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.374, 375 & 376/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Shyam Kumar Netam Rajasevaiya Pithoura, Ward No.3, Mahasamund-493 551 (C.G.) Pan: Apspn2061H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 395 days involved in the captioned appeals is condoned and appeals are heard on merits. 7. That

VINAY PRATAP SINGH, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR , RAIPUR

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

ITA 398/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.398/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vinay Pratap Singh Ward No.14, Rest House Road, Post & District: Dantewada-494 449 (C.G.) Pan: Ajnps3734P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 327 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 6. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel

SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BHOJWANI, BHATAPARA,BHATAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHATAPARA, BHATAPARA

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

ITA 488/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.488/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Narendra Kumar Bhojwani C/O. Bhojwani Medical Stores, Hatri Bazar, Sadar Ward, Bhatapara-493 118 (C.G.) Pan: Adepb7523J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 5

justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 431 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 6. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel

LALJI WAKRE, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ITO-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 768/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.768/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Lalji Wakre Vill: Salhekota, The. Marwahi, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 118 Pan: Acipw5906F

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

nature of the assessee. The judicial principles enshrined in various decisions dictates that such inordinate delay combined with negligence and lack of sufficiency of cause for the delay results in dismissal of the case on the ground of limitation itself. That even within the connotation of ‘justice oriented approach’, it would be unfair towards Revenue to condone

LATE SHANTI MOHTA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 71/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Late Shanti Mohta 15/391, Jawahar Nagar, Ravigram S.O Chhattisgarh- 492 001 Pan: Aldpm6184F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 46 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 6. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel

RAJKUMAR THADWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 257/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.257/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajkumar Thadwani 1-Raju Krishi Kendra, Amardeep Talkies Road, Banstal, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt0267A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 515 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 5 Rajkumar Thadwani Vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Raipur

SANJEEV KUMAR BHOTHRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 96/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sanjeev Kumar Bothra C/O. Bluescope Mineral Co. Lg-1, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, Near Shastri Chouk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adepb0219R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 575 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 4 Sanjeev Kumar Bothra Vs. ITO, Ward