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.

14 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 77clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai346Mumbai292Delhi225Kolkata219Bangalore162Pune162Hyderabad154Ahmedabad145Karnataka127Jaipur103Chandigarh69Visakhapatnam58Indore43Surat41Calcutta39Cuttack28Lucknow27Cochin24Patna21Raipur21Nagpur20Kerala17Guwahati17SC15Rajkot14Amritsar13Telangana10Panaji8Agra5Jodhpur5Jabalpur4Allahabad4Orissa3Varanasi2Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 25021Addition to Income10Section 69A9Limitation/Time-bar9Section 11(2)8Section 143(3)6Section 1476Condonation of Delay6Section 69

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

ITA 519/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in both appeals and admit these appeals for hearing. 7. In both these appeals, the assessee has raised the grounds pertaining to technical issue, being notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is time barred. When these cases were called for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration, in both appeals

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

5
Section 44A4
Section 1484
Unexplained Investment3
ITA 521/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Rajkot
09 Feb 2026
AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in both appeals and admit these appeals for hearing. 7. In both these appeals, the assessee has raised the grounds pertaining to technical issue, being notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is time barred. When these cases were called for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration, in both appeals

PRATIBHABEN ASHOKKUMAR DAVE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 20/RJT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Pratibhaben Ashokumar Dave The Ito, Ward-3(1) Rajkot. “Shiv Urja”, 12-Bhaktinagar Society Vs. Dhebar Road Rajkot. (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Written submissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR
Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 3

77,636/- and Rs.287/- on account of long term capital gain, and (b) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing first appeal and dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the issue on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a teacher and deriving income salary. Return of income

CHIMANLAL BHUTALAL SAGAR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 126/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 126/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (208-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanlal Bhutalal Sagar Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/.O Ca Himansu Gandhi, 10Th Floor, D Tax (International Taxation)-1, Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Room N.312, Ito, Amruta Mills Compaund, Lower Parle – 400013 Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M. G. Road, Gujarat – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Fdmps3665D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Himansu Gandhi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Himansu Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69

section 271AAC(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or hearing. alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 11. Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal (if yes please attach application seeking condonation of delay) 3. At the outset, that the appeal

SHRI GIRISHKUMAR RAMNIKLAL DOSHI,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 297/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Girishkumar Ramniklal Vs. Income Tax Officer Doshi Ward-2, Surendranagar B-601, Retreat, Near Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpd2297E (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

77,783/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned assessing officer has grossly erred in making impugned addition under Section 69 of the Act without appreciating the fact that no actual investments were made for the subject year under consideration by the appellant

SATYENDRA KUMAR,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 909/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.909/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Satyendra Kumar Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Plot No-72 Ward-7B., Ito Ward – 1, Gandhidham, Kutch - 370201 Gandhidham - 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeapk7626J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/ 07 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 250

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Satyendrakumar vs. The I.T. Officer ward-1 2. GROUNDS OF APPEALS:- 1. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing appeal on ground of limitation without condoning delay of 190 days in filing appeal. 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts

RAFIKBHAI AJIJBHAI VIRANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT NFAC INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

ITA 141/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani बनाम The Assessment Unit, National Steet No.2, Near Navnala, Faceless Assessment Center, Income /Vs. Gulabnagar Tari Hanuman Tax Department Road, Jamnagar-361007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ascpv 1519 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”, Dated 18.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “Reopening U/S 148A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) 1. The Learned The National Faceless Appeal Centre [“The Cit(A)”] & The Assessment Unti, Income Tax Department (“The Ao”) Erred In Fact & In Law In Initiating Proceedings U/S 148 Of The Act Without Issuing Notice U/S Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”, dated 18.06.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated

SORTHIYA AHIR GNATINO UTARO,BHAVNATH, JUNAGADH vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 104/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

77 (Guj.) and CIT Vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association reported in 247 ITR 201 (SC). 5. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri B.D. Gupta appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities and further submitted the CIT (Exemption) refused to condone the delay in Form No. 10 belatedly filed by the assessee on the ground

SHRI DHARAMRAJSINH BRIJRAJSINH JADEJA,DHROL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), JAMNAGAR

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

ITA 303/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter I.T.A No. 303/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Dharamrajsinh Brijrajsinh Jadeja vs. ITO referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015- 16. 2. The Registry has noted that the appeal is time barred by 47 days. The assessee in his affidavit stated that because

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BHAGVANJI PRABHUBHAI AMRUTIYA, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 142/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

Section 292C, he is liable to explain the noting in the impounded diary. 42.The assessee submitted before the learned CIT(A) that the statement of Shri Bhupendra Balubhai Patel recorded u/s 133A of the Act dated 03.01.2019, was a non-connected party, as he is neither subjected to survey action nor he is owner of the premises surveyed from which

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. EXPERT PARTICLE BOARD, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 139/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

Section 292C, he is liable to explain the noting in the impounded diary. 42.The assessee submitted before the learned CIT(A) that the statement of Shri Bhupendra Balubhai Patel recorded u/s 133A of the Act dated 03.01.2019, was a non-connected party, as he is neither subjected to survey action nor he is owner of the premises surveyed from which

PRAGNESH KANTARYA,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 485/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 485/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pragnesh Kantariya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd –1, (Prop. Of Vision Industies) Surendranagar, Income Tax Office, B2-1101, Shilpan Onyx, Gangotri Park Opp. Mela Medan, Main Road, University Road, Surendranagar-363001 Rajkot – 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bbspk0467P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case. Further, it was clearly mentioned in the show-cause notice that the case will be finalized ex-parte under section144 on the basis of material/information available on record But the assessee has failed to respond to the said show-cause notice

ASIF LATIFBHAI KHIMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 458/RJT/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravee Verma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

condone the delay, and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 5. In the Assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has challenged reopening of the assessment. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 25.2.2009 declaring total income at Rs.1,12,890/-. The assessment was framed under section

ASIF LATIFBHAI KHIMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 459/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravee Verma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

condone the delay, and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 5. In the Assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has challenged reopening of the assessment. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 25.2.2009 declaring total income at Rs.1,12,890/-. The assessment was framed under section