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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 148clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai621Mumbai587Delhi388Kolkata374Ahmedabad297Hyderabad247Pune247Jaipur230Bangalore195Surat182Indore130Chandigarh123Visakhapatnam91Rajkot86Cochin79Amritsar78Patna78Lucknow77Nagpur55Raipur48Panaji43Agra37Jabalpur27Cuttack26Guwahati22Dehradun15Allahabad15SC9Jodhpur8Ranchi7Varanasi4

Key Topics

Section 1489Section 1476Condonation of Delay5Section 44A4Section 148A4Addition to Income4Section 69A2Section 2502Section 250(6)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

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

Section 143(2)2

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

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

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

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

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

148 of the act as well as show-cause notice under 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