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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai158Kolkata109Delhi85Jaipur48Ahmedabad45Chennai44Amritsar34Surat33Bangalore20Pune17Hyderabad16Chandigarh16Lucknow12Visakhapatnam10Rajkot9Indore8Raipur8Cochin5Calcutta5Guwahati4Dehradun3SC2Jabalpur1Agra1Jodhpur1Nagpur1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 26316Section 143(3)9Section 115B5Survey u/s 133A5Condonation of Delay5Section 69C4Section 133A3Section 693Addition to Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

ITA 251/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

delay is condoned in filing the cross objection.\n8. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an\nIndividual. The assessee has filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.)\n2017-18, on 31/01/2018, declaring therein total income of Rs. Nil/-. The return\nof income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

ITA 610/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot
3
Limitation/Time-bar3
Section 69A2
Natural Justice2
25 Apr 2025
AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also 119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 609/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also 119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

ITA 612/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

delay in filing the appeals, for which condonation was sought and granted.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT's orders were not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and taken a plausible view, and the conditions for invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 were not met. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's orders.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

ITA 229/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay inassessee`s appeal in ITA No. 595/Rjt/2024 (Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd.). 8. When, these two appeals called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 25.04.2025 in the case of“Shree Samrath Switchgear &Transmission P. Ltd. & Shri Samrath Electronics P. Ltd.& Shri Gojiya Bhikhubhai”, vide

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

ITA 595/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay inassessee`s appeal in ITA No. 595/Rjt/2024 (Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd.). 8. When, these two appeals called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 25.04.2025 in the case of“Shree Samrath Switchgear &Transmission P. Ltd. & Shri Samrath Electronics P. Ltd.& Shri Gojiya Bhikhubhai”, vide

ISHWARBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 679/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri PM Jagaseth C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 69ASection 69C

delay is condoned. 3. The Assessing Officer has made addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act amounting to Rs. 10,17,870/- being expenditure incurred on the purchase from IshwarbhaiShantilal Patel Vs. ITO Asst.Year:2018-19 - 2– M/s. Mirza Traders amounting to 19,78,032/- and cash was received from said party. From the perusal

SHRI NARESH RAMJI BHANUSHALI,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 295/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 295/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri Naresh Ramji The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Bhanushali Ward-1, Gandhidham Vs. T. No.1, Plot No.257, Ward 8A, Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aewpb8042H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri V. J. Boricha, D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Rajkot (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Gandhidham Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

delay is condoned. 3. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 4. Before the Ld. AO, the addition was made under Section 69C

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

ITA 16/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

condoning it or taking part in it.\"\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in the illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue