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.

27 results for “condonation of delay”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,026Chennai1,810Delhi1,630Kolkata1,228Pune926Ahmedabad918Hyderabad818Bangalore728Jaipur645Chandigarh503Surat385Patna378Indore377Raipur346Cochin286Lucknow285Visakhapatnam275Amritsar261Supreme Court261Rajkot242Nagpur232Agra199Cuttack190Panaji141Guwahati74Jodhpur70Dehradun68Jabalpur64Allahabad44Ranchi27Varanasi20

Key Topics

Addition to Income27Condonation of Delay20Section 409Section 1447Section 1477Section 2506Section 69A6Section 44A6Section 1486

M/S. JUNIOR CHAMBER INTERNATIONAL,,RANCHI vs. ITO , EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 33/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 12A

income from other sources. The addition made by Ld. AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is uncalled for. 5. For that the other grounds in detail shall be argued at the time of final hearing." 2. From perusal of record, we find that there is a delay of 36 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal, for which

PRAVIN KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ACIT, C.C.1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 327/RAN/2025[21-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-2022) Pravin Kumar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, S/O-D. Thakur, Beed Banglow Ranchi Tatisilwai, Ranchi-835103 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Bhupk 7127 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

Section 270A6
TDS6
Exemption5
For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR

condone the delay of 237 days in the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted to be disposed off. 2 4. It was submission that there was a search carried out in the premises of the assessee on 09.02.2011 relating to the assessment year 2021-2022. The cash of Rs.3 lakhs was found which had been claimed

DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 263/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made various additions and completed the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income

DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 262/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made various additions and completed the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income

KUMAR PRATIK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAHIBGANJ

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kumar Pratik, I.T.O., Tower C2, Flat 1402, Eden City, Sahibganj. Vs. Mahestala, Kolkata-700137. Pan No. Buapp 7990 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer, on the basis of AIR/CIB(NMS Data) information found that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 despite the fact that he has carried out financial transactions in immovable property

BABY CHATTERJEE,RANCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 241/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Baby Chatterjee, I.T.O., 2A/2B, Krishna Enclave, North Office Ward 1(3), Vs. Para, Doranda, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Anppc 8818 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 69A

delay of about one month in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had declared income under the head 'income from salary and income from other sources (interest)' for the assessment year under consideration and declared total income at ₹ 4,16,400/- . The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS

MOHAMMAD ASIF RAZA,JUGSALAI vs. ITO, C.H.AREA

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 151/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Mohammad Asif Raza, I.T.O., Hussini Line Near Smart Tailer, Purani Ward 1(1), Vs. Basti Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-831006 Pan No. Bqwpr 9615 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit. 3. On merit of the case, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition of ₹ 11,67,560/-on account of income

MOUNT OLIVE'S WELFARE TRUST,GUMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD- RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 252/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal was due to the fact that after corona virus

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Goenka, ld ARFor Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr hri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr DR

income tax appeal before the ITAT. Even otherwise, most of the staff had left their job. It was stated that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 4. After considering the delay condonation petition and hearing ld AR, we are satisfied that the delay in filing was due to reasonable cause. Therefore, we condone the delay of 75 days

M/S EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133ASection 270ASection 274

income. 3. For that the penalty imposed by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is uncalled for since the same has been made towards the addition on estimate basis or any subsequent uncalled for addition. 4. For that in any view of the case the notice issued u/s 274/270A and the conclusion in order of assessment was itself vague

KHURSHID ALAM,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-2(7), HAZARIBAGH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 496/RAN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.496/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Khurshid Alam.………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Jhirkey, Kathara, Bokaro, Jharkhand-829116. [Pan: Ahxpa0635P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(7), Hazaribagh........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 540 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,38,770/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derived income from salary. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 by declaring total income of Rs.2,38,770/-. The case of the assessee

HRIDAAN ENTERPRISE,DUMKA vs. ITO, DUMKA

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Hridaan Enterprises, I.T.O., Bhagalpur Road, Dumka. Dumka. Vs. Pan No. Aajfh 3035 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 68

Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 07/03/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. We find from perusal of record that there is delay of 28 days in filing of this appeal of the assessee

NIRMALA TULSYAN,DHANBAD vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 197/RAN/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

delay of 15 days in filing both these appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 8. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order. The assessee was served with various notices to substantiate the various grounds of appeals raised before ld. CIT(A). However, no compliance was made by assessee. Accordingly

NIRMALA TULSYAN,DHANBAD vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 196/RAN/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

delay of 15 days in filing both these appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 8. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order. The assessee was served with various notices to substantiate the various grounds of appeals raised before ld. CIT(A). However, no compliance was made by assessee. Accordingly

SUMBUL ALAM,RANCHI vs. ASSISTANT COOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI

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

ITA 412/RAN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Doctor in a private hospital named as M/s Alam Hospital and Research Centre. In this case, a search and seizure operated was conducted on 14/12/2022 in the case of M/s Alam Hospital and Research Centre. Subsequently notice under

SUMBUL ALAM,RANCHI vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI

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

ITA 411/RAN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Doctor in a private hospital named as M/s Alam Hospital and Research Centre. In this case, a search and seizure operated was conducted on 14/12/2022 in the case of M/s Alam Hospital and Research Centre. Subsequently notice under

MANJU KUMARI L/H AVINASH KUMAR,RAMGARH vs. ITO WARD-2(3), RAMGARH, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 144Section 147

Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 17/12/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 228 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay was filed

CHARANJEET KAUR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 58/RAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 144Section 147Section 69

Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 13/03/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 286 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay in the form

PAWAN KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), RANCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 487/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.487/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pawan Kumar….………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant A/3, Manorama Enclave, Argora, Pundag Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834012. [Pan: Agypk0863F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 03.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case. 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of serving notices for hearing and the Tribunal cannot keep this appeal pending for indefinite time due to non-representation. Therefore, in the absence of any authorised representative of the assessee

RAJARAM AGRAWAL,CHAKRADHARPUR vs. ITO, CHAIBASA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.92/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Rajaram Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Chaibasa Ward No.7, Kali Mandir, Chakradharpur, West Singhbhum, Chakradharpur, Jharkhand स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aejpa 5952 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Kolkata, Dated 23.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016- 2017. 2. Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, Ld.Ar Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 314 Days. It Was The Prayer That The Delay May Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Adjudicated. 4. I Have Perused The Records. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee On For Condonation Of Delay Reads As Follow:-

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr
Section 44A

condone the delay and the appeal of the assessee is admitted to be disposed off on merits. 6. On merits, it was submitted by the ld.AR AR that the assessee is a dealer in Sugar, atta, maida and suji rice etc. It was the submission that the return has been filed by applying the provisions of Section 44AD

MUSLIM FUND,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 378/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through : Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.378/Ran/2024 (धनध ारण वषा / A.Y.S :2017-2018) Muslim Fund Vs. Ito (Exemption Ward), Jama Masjid, Sakchi, Jamshedpur Jamshedpur स्थ यी लेख सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaam 0411 A (अपील थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Choudhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates र जस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनव ई की त रीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2025 घोषण की त रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25/01/2024, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060142968(1) For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Filed Belatedly By 195 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Therein. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 195 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary & Shri DeveshFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 69A

condone the delay of 195 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is heard finally. 2 3. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and the AO has made addition u/s.69A of the Act assessing the total income