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.

71 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 249(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai216Chennai138Kolkata128Chandigarh116Bangalore102Delhi102Ahmedabad101Raipur71Hyderabad70Jaipur67Pune55Surat54Indore53Visakhapatnam36Lucknow35Panaji28Agra25Amritsar25Patna23Cuttack23Nagpur14Rajkot14Guwahati12Ranchi11Jodhpur11Jabalpur9Allahabad6Cochin5Dehradun3SC2Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)95Section 249(3)63Addition to Income48TDS47Section 25035Limitation/Time-bar31Natural Justice30Deduction28Condonation of Delay

SAVITA SANJAY MARGHADE,DURG, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHILAI

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

ITA 849/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 849/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14) Savita Sanjay Marghade, Mig-658, Vs Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Padmanabhpur, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Opposite Geet Talkies, 491001 New Civic Centre, Sector 6 Bhilai Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 490006 Pan: Aktpm6715H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2013-14 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250

condonation of delay filed by the assessee was neither genuine nor valid. 7. After thoughtful consideration of the Notification F. No. S.O. 3296 (E), dated 25-9-2020, we are of the considered view that the admission of any appeal under section 249(2) and 249(4

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

27
Disallowance24
Section 143(3)23
Section 80P19

AGRAWAL SPONGE LTD. , RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 136/RPR/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Agrawal Sponge Limited 91-92, Siltara Growth Centre, Phase-Ii, Birgaon, Raipur-493 221 (C.G.) Pan: Aaeca3183F

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chawda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4

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)

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 out that the observations

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 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)

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 out that the observations

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)

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 out that the observations

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)

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 out that the observations

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)

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 out that the observations

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)

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 out that the observations

VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 69/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed.)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

condonation of delay, which is mandatory when an appeal is filed after the due date. In Form 35, at Column No. 2(c), the appellant has mentioned the date of service of the assessment order as 25.03.2025, and since the appeal was filed on 06.04.2025, he claims that the appeal is within the time prescribed under section 249

RAJESH KUMAR SINGHANIA HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 848/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.848/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Singhania Huf B-22/12, Sector-3, Udaya Society, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aadhr1548F

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) r.w.s. 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That once delay condoned

UDAY VENTURE,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 824/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.824/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Uday Venture Singhania Bhawan, Subhash Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aadfu7600D

For Appellant: None (petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) r.w.s. 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That once delay condoned

SHYAM PULSES PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4/RPR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.03 & 04/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Agency, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aaics7656K

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) r.w.s. 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That once delay condoned

SHYAM PULSES PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.03 & 04/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Agency, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aaics7656K

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) r.w.s. 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That once delay condoned

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

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

ITA 516/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 282

delay. At the same time, Section 249(3) of the Act has to be read a/w. 250 (4) & (6) of the Act. Meaning thereby, in exercising such discretion as envisaged u/s. 249(3) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall have to conduct enquiry and examine the submissions regarding the condonation

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGOAN,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

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

ITA 518/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 282

delay. At the same time, Section 249(3) of the Act has to be read a/w. 250 (4) & (6) of the Act. Meaning thereby, in exercising such discretion as envisaged u/s. 249(3) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall have to conduct enquiry and examine the submissions regarding the condonation

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

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

ITA 517/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 282

delay. At the same time, Section 249(3) of the Act has to be read a/w. 250 (4) & (6) of the Act. Meaning thereby, in exercising such discretion as envisaged u/s. 249(3) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall have to conduct enquiry and examine the submissions regarding the condonation

NAVEEN CHAND,NANDINI NAGAR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI

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

ITA 215/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.215/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Naveen Chand Ward No.13, Nandini Nagar, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Durg (C.G.)-490 036 Pan: Akapc5152F

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4

TIRATH SINGH PRITHPAL SINGH, BASTAR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD KANKER, KANKER

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

ITA 184/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.184/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tirath Singh Prithpal Singh Raipur Road, Kondagaon, Bastar-494 226 Pan: Aabft4954F

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 744/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.744/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Mig-42, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Alops3921M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 154(2)(B)Section 154(8)Section 155Section 186Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Section 249(3) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and the said authority shall accordingly consider merits of those submissions and first decide regarding 6 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. ITO, NFAC condonation of delay. If only delay is condoned then the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall travel to the merits of the matter and at that point

SANTOSH KUMAR, SURGUJA,SURGUJA vs. ITO - 1 AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

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

ITA 671/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.671/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

4 days. The assessee has mentioned as “No” in point No.14 (whether there is delay in filing appeal) in Form 35. Further, the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. That since the appeal was filed belatedly in terms with Section 249