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.

133 results for “condonation of delay”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,423Mumbai1,342Delhi936Pune652Kolkata546Ahmedabad455Bangalore401Jaipur390Hyderabad289Surat208Chandigarh184Indore173Lucknow146Raipur145Nagpur135Rajkot133Cochin125Visakhapatnam105Cuttack95Amritsar74Patna72Agra57Calcutta54Karnataka51Guwahati40Ranchi30SC27Panaji26Dehradun24Jabalpur23Jodhpur19Allahabad15Telangana11Varanasi5Orissa4Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Penalty71Section 14765Addition to Income57Section 25043Limitation/Time-bar42Section 271(1)(c)41Condonation of Delay38Section 14837Section 144

SHRI DAYABHAI KARSHANBHAI GAREJA, MANGROL, DISTRICT JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 415/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 144oSection 250Section 253(3)

condonation of delay.\n2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand.\n3. In the present case order u/s 250 of the Act has been served on 25.09.2023 and sixty\ndays of the date of service

SHRI BHIMABHAI KARSHANBHAI GAREJA,FULRAMA, TAL. MAGROL, DIST. JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 416/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot

Showing 1–20 of 133 · Page 1 of 7

36
Section 143(3)27
Section 69A25
Section 142(1)20
12 Sept 2025
AY 2017-18
Section 144oSection 250Section 253(3)

condonation of delay.\n2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand.\n3. In the present case order u/s 250 of the Act has been served on 25.09.2023 and sixty\ndays of the date of service

JYOTIBEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH,PORBANDAR vs. ITO, W-2(3), PORBANDAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 184/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 147

condonation of delay, is reproduced below:\n“With reference to the above, I request you as under:\nEx parte assessment order u/s 144 of the income tax act, 1961 was passed in\nthe case of my deceased mother Jyotiben R Shah on 21/10/2019. The same\nwas served to our family member_on_29/10/2019. My mother heavenly\npassed away on 09/09/2019

SHAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

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

ITA 441/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal in case of quantum proceedings, in ITA No. 441/Rjt/2024 and 214 days delay in filing the appeal in ITA No. 442/Rjt/2024 ( penalty

SAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

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

ITA 442/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal in case of quantum proceedings, in ITA No. 441/Rjt/2024 and 214 days delay in filing the appeal in ITA No. 442/Rjt/2024 ( penalty

ARJAN LILA GORANIYA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 378/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.378/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Arjan Lila Goraniya Vs. Ito Ward 2 (4), Inajiya Vadi Vistar, Porbandar - 360575 Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ ./Pan/Gir No.: Bbwpg1554P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld
Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and bad-in-law. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T.Act

BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,ANJAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

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

ITA 388/RJT/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.418 & 388/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) Pan : Apepr3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay are similar and identical in both appeals. The Ld Counsel for the assessee explained the reasons of delay in both these appeals stating that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC had passed order u/s 250 for A.Y. 2009-10 on 29/09/2022 confirming penalty

SHRI BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,VILLAGE MEGHPAR, TAL. ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH

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

ITA 418/RJT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.418 & 388/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) Pan : Apepr3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay are similar and identical in both appeals. The Ld Counsel for the assessee explained the reasons of delay in both these appeals stating that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC had passed order u/s 250 for A.Y. 2009-10 on 29/09/2022 confirming penalty

SURENDRABA RAGHUVIRSINH CHUDASAMA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

ITA 938/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, has explained the reasons for delay stating that in the assessee`s case, the appellate order under section 250 of the Income tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13 has been passed on 19th September 2023. In view of the same, the present appeal ought to have been filed

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

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

ITA 783/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

penalty appeals were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

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

ITA 785/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

penalty appeals were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

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

ITA 784/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

penalty appeals were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

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

ITA 786/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

penalty appeals were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay

ANILA NARENDRA SANGHANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes\nOrder is pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2025

ITA 322/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

penalty\norder passed by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, relevant\nto the Assessment Year 2013-14.\nITA No. 322 & 323/Rjt/2025\nAntila Narendra Sanghani\n2.\nAt the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has\nnot condoned the delay

NILESH ASHANAND THACKER,BHUJ vs. ITO WARD 4, GANDHIDHAM (BHUJ)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 377/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in- law. That the appellant craves leave

SHRI BECHARBHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI VASOYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 125/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay are\nreproduced below:\n“3. That, I was not able to reply due to lack of procedural knowledge and my age is\n75 years and the health conditions are not so good at this time.\n4. That, m CA Dilip Khunt having staff named Disha Khunt was looking out my appeal\nmatters but she left

KRANTI ELECTRIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (4) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 410/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

condonation of delay which are similar in both\nthese appeals are as follows:-\n2\nITA No. 410 & 411/Rjt/2025\nKranti Electric Engineering P. Ltd.\n“1. I Mahendra Jadavbhai Kothadia Director of Kranti Electric Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,\nhaving Registered office at shed No.C-1, B-239, GID Aji vasahat, Aji Industrial Area,\nRajkot. Do hereby affirm and\n2. THAT the Learned

ANILA NARENDRA SANGHANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAMANAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes\nOrder is pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2025

ITA 323/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

penalty\norder passed by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, relevant\nto the Assessment Year 2013-14.\nITA No. 322 & 323/Rjt/2025\nAntila Narendra Sanghani\n2.\nAt the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has\nnot condoned the delay

OM CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

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

ITA 492/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Om Ceramics Industries Ito, Wd – 1, Anand Nagar, 8-A, National Highway, Wankaner, Vs. Morbi – 363642 Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpo6588L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

condone the delay of 87 days. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 4. The assessee`s appeal in ITA 492/Rjt/2025 pertains to penalty

OM CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

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

ITA 493/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Om Ceramics Industries Ito, Wd – 1, Anand Nagar, 8-A, National Highway, Wankaner, Vs. Morbi – 363642 Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpo6588L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

condone the delay of 87 days. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 4. The assessee`s appeal in ITA 492/Rjt/2025 pertains to penalty