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.

382 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 7clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,934Chennai1,685Delhi1,673Pune1,069Kolkata1,061Ahmedabad983Bangalore832Hyderabad766Jaipur707Patna684Chandigarh433Surat416Raipur382Nagpur349Indore345Visakhapatnam318Cochin295Lucknow273Rajkot258Amritsar243Cuttack162Panaji122Agra122Dehradun86SC70Guwahati69Jodhpur66Ranchi52Jabalpur48Allahabad38Varanasi20A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)95Addition to Income74Section 143(3)59Section 26351TDS47Condonation of Delay37Section 25035Section 14733Limitation/Time-bar

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)

section 249 of Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x);" 5.4. I find that delay of 3170 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While 'interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause of 'substantial justice', period of delay

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

Showing 1–20 of 382 · Page 1 of 20

...
33
Disallowance32
Deduction28
Section 249(3)25

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)

section 249 of Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x);" 5.4. I find that delay of 3170 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While 'interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause of 'substantial justice', period 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 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)

section 249 of Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x);" 5.4. I find that delay of 3170 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While 'interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause of 'substantial justice', period 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 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)

section 249 of Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x);" 5.4. I find that delay of 3170 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While 'interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause of 'substantial justice', period 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 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)

section 249 of Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x);" 5.4. I find that delay of 3170 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While 'interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause of 'substantial justice', period 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)

section 249 of Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x);" 5.4. I find that delay of 3170 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While 'interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause of 'substantial justice', period of delay

SHRI JAVED ALI PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 300/BIL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash –
Section 253Section 253(3)

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within

SMT SMT. FAZILA PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 294/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash –
Section 253Section 253(3)

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within

SHRI JAVED ALI PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 299/BIL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash –
Section 253Section 253(3)

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within

SMT SMT. FAZILA PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 295/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash –
Section 253Section 253(3)

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within

SHRI JAVED ALI PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 301/BIL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash –
Section 253Section 253(3)

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within

SHRI JAVED ALI PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 297/BIL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash –
Section 253Section 253(3)

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within

SHRI JAVED ALI PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 298/BIL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash –
Section 253Section 253(3)

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within

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

7. The additional ground of the assessee is not maintainable at this stage as the application of condonation of delay for filling of appeal of the assessee has not arrived at any finality. Hence, based on revenue submission dated 06-03-2023 it is prayed that, the delay in filing appeal by 668 days may not be entertained and appeal

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

7 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 to the revenue. That a separate application for condonation of delay is also being submitted on record.” I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the reasons given by the assessee, on the basis of which, the aforesaid inordinate delay of 191 days is sought

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

7 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 to the revenue. That a separate application for condonation of delay is also being submitted on record.” I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the reasons given by the assessee, on the basis of which, the aforesaid inordinate delay of 191 days is sought

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

section 250(6B) of the Act. We have also taken note of the categorical observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not filed any justification for condonation of delay. After thoughtful consideration of the impugned order, we are unable to infer that whether the Ld. CIT(A) has provided any specific opportunity of being heard

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD, BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

Section 154(7) of the Act. There is no bonafide reasons disclosed, for such, huge inordinate delay and the Ld. Counsel would have explained sufficient cause for whatever reasons as would have been best known to him, however, when there has been such huge delay in the process of law itself, the assessee cannot be termed as bonafide since

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD,BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 140/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

Section 154(7) of the Act. There is no bonafide reasons disclosed, for such, huge inordinate delay and the Ld. Counsel would have explained sufficient cause for whatever reasons as would have been best known to him, however, when there has been such huge delay in the process of law itself, the assessee cannot be termed as bonafide since

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD,BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 137/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

Section 154(7) of the Act. There is no bonafide reasons disclosed, for such, huge inordinate delay and the Ld. Counsel would have explained sufficient cause for whatever reasons as would have been best known to him, however, when there has been such huge delay in the process of law itself, the assessee cannot be termed as bonafide since