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”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai667Delhi520Chennai477Kolkata381Ahmedabad359Hyderabad277Bangalore277Jaipur253Pune243Surat217Indore189Rajkot139Amritsar138Karnataka129Lucknow116Visakhapatnam115Chandigarh99Patna86Nagpur65Agra63Cochin57Cuttack52Calcutta37Raipur37Guwahati35Jabalpur32Panaji30Allahabad28Jodhpur22Dehradun21SC9Varanasi8Ranchi6Orissa3Andhra Pradesh1Telangana1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 1447Section 1475Condonation of Delay4Addition to Income4Natural Justice3Section 1482

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. On merit of the case, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee but the assessee filed a paper book and stated that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order ex parte without giving fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee stated that

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 Ranchi
20 Feb 2026
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 144Section 147Section 69

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. On merit of the case, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order ex parte without giving fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made

MAKHAN LAL GUPTA,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), DHANBAD

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

ITA 367/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2013-14 Makhan Makhan Lal Lal Gupta, Gupta, Acc Acc Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Income Tax Officer, Ward Limited, Limited, Sindri Sindri Cement Cement 1(10, Dhanbad 1(10, Dhanbad Work, Acc Colony, Sindri , Work, Acc Colony, Sindri , Dhanbad Pan/Gir No. No. Auzpg 5573 D Appellant Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn.Petition) (Adjn.Petition) Revenue Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Ld Sr. Khubchand T Pandya, Ld Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2 2025

For Appellant: None (Adjn.petition)For Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

section did not condone the delay in filing of appeal. In our P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2013-14 considered opinion, such delay needs to be condoned, because according to him, the notices were sent in wrong address and he was not aware of the fact and only when he came to know about passing of orders

GARIMA CONSTRUCTION,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RANCHI

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

ITA 483/RAN/2024[22-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.483/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Garima Construction………….……………............................……….……Appellant M/11 Bariatu Housing Colony Bariatu Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834009. [Pan: Aasfg5282A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi...…...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.24 Of The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹1,87,050. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Basis Of Information Received Through The Criu Portal Pursuant To A Search Operation Conducted On One Shri Naresh Kejriwal, Who Was Identified As A Hawala Entry Operator. Based On Such Information, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received Accommodation Entries Amounting To ₹20,50,000 & ₹1,95,61,000/- During The Relevant Year. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Submitted Details & Supporting Documents To Substantiate The Genuineness Of The Transactions. However, The Assessing Officer Was Not Satisfied With The Explanation

Section 144

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee stated that the impugned order was ex parte therefore liable to be set aside. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment was completed ex parte under section 144

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

DEBASREE SENGUPTA,SONARI vs. ITO WARD 1 (1), JAMSHEDPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 144Section 148

section 144 of the Act was issued. The assessee, however, did not appear in response to the notices. Subsequently, the assessee filed a reply, but the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and determined the total income at Rs.43,43,250. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals