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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai555Mumbai517Delhi429Ahmedabad349Kolkata311Pune230Jaipur166Hyderabad157Surat120Bangalore116Chandigarh103Visakhapatnam87Rajkot82Indore77Raipur73Patna67Agra52Nagpur52Lucknow46Amritsar38Cuttack31Guwahati23Cochin19Jodhpur18Panaji14Dehradun14Jabalpur11Varanasi9Ranchi6SC6Allahabad3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 1476Section 1486Condonation of Delay6Section 148A4Reopening of Assessment3Addition to Income3Section 2502Section 250(6)2Section 143(2)

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

ANKITA AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

2
Section 69A2

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.499/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ankita Agarwal………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Near Kali Mandir, Harharguttu, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831002. [Pan: Atkpa9502A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..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 28.06.2024 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 125 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 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

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

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

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 of the assessee u/s.115BBE

SUNIL KUMAR,BOKARO vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BOKARO

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysunil Kumar, I.T.O., 255, Jora Mandir Road, Chas, Ward-3(1), Vs. Bokaro-827013 (Jharkhand) Bokaro. Pan No. Alypk 0473 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 148A

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. 4. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) is on 15/03/2022 and the time given for compliance is 17/03/2022 which is less than Sunil Kumar vs ITO the requisite

VIDYA AGRAWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 52/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayvidya Agrawal, I.T.O., 86, Burdwan Compound, Near Kali Ward-1(1), Vs. Mandir, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Afhpa 8222 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

assessment order before the ld. CIT(A) within time and after filing the appeal, the assessee again went quite. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in ex parte proceedings. There was delay of 102 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which, the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay. Before