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.

61 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 3clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,406Delhi2,131Chennai2,062Kolkata1,286Pune1,213Ahmedabad1,177Bangalore907Hyderabad815Jaipur788Patna743Surat511Chandigarh508Indore473Nagpur400Raipur393Cochin356Lucknow345Visakhapatnam338Rajkot323Amritsar250Cuttack210Agra162Panaji139Dehradun95Guwahati88Jodhpur80Jabalpur75SC73Allahabad62Ranchi61Varanasi21A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)58Section 27438Penalty25Section 12A23Condonation of Delay22Addition to Income19Limitation/Time-bar17Section 153A16Section 80G

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/RAN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

delay of 175 days is condoned. 3. In the case of Kiran Laxmi kant Joshi v. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 822 (AHD.), the facts were that the assessee moved an application under section

ALOK KUMAR,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 185/RAN/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

delay of 175 days is condoned. 3. In the case of Kiran Laxmi kant Joshi v. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 822 (AHD.), the facts were that the assessee moved an application under section

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4

10
Section 14710
Exemption10
Section 119

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

delay of 175 days is condoned. 3. In the case of Kiran Laxmi kant Joshi v. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 822 (AHD.), the facts were that the assessee moved an application under section

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/RAN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

delay of 175 days is condoned. 3. In the case of Kiran Laxmi kant Joshi v. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 822 (AHD.), the facts were that the assessee moved an application under section

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/RAN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

delay of 175 days is condoned. 3. In the case of Kiran Laxmi kant Joshi v. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 822 (AHD.), the facts were that the assessee moved an application under section

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

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited unlisted company, engaged in the real estate business. Survey under section

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

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

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

HOLYFAITH TRIBAL W AND D TRUST ,RANCHI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI

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

ITA 69/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, I.T.O., 406, Midland East Apartment, 406, Midland East Apartment, Exemption Ward, Exemption Ward, Vs. Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) 834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaath 5200 R Aaath 5200 R Appellant/ Assessee Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 13(1)Section 133(6)Section 17

3. At the outset, we find from perusal of record that there is delay of about four months in filing of this appeal by the appellant before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 04/09/2023, however, this appeal was filed on 29/03/2024. The appellant has filed application for condonation of delay mentioning the fact that

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)

3) of the Act for the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as contained under section 249(2) of the Act r/w section did not condone the delay

CHANDRAVANSHI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,GARHWA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PATNA

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

ITA 473/RAN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Chandravanshi Educational Foundation, C.I.T.(Exemption), C/O-R C Chandravanshi Welfare Trust, Patna. Vs. Garhwa-833114 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aagcc 7713 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, as mentioned in the order of ld. CIT(E) are that an application in Form 10AB was filed on 30/03/2024 by the appellant i.e. Chandravanshi Educational Foundation for grant of regular registration under sub clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section

JAYANT KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND ITO WARD 3(1), JAMSHEDPUR, RANCHI

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

ITA 3/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2016-17 Jayant Kumar, Flat No.702, Jayant Kumar, Flat No.702, Vs. National National E E-Assessment Ostwal Oasis, Near Ostswal Ostwal Oasis, Near Ostswal Centre/The Centre/The Income Income Tax Tax Sales Office, Kanakia Road, Sales Office, Kanakia Road, Officer, Ward-3(1), Patna 3(1), Patna Mira Mira Road Road (E), (E), Mumbai- Mumbai 401107 Pan/Gir No.Atqpk 5500 Q No.Atqpk 5500 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None(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)

3) of the Act for the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as contained under section 249(2) of the Act r/w section did not condone the delay

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

3. That the assessee had filed her return of income under section 44ADA declaring gross receipt amounting to Rs. 6,26,520.00 which is much higher than the assessed amount i.e. 4,47,146.00 and the assessee is taking liberty of not maintaining proper books of accounts as per the provisions of section 44ADA. 4. That the amount made through

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

3. That the assessee had filed her return of income under section 44ADA declaring gross receipt amounting to Rs. 6,26,520.00 which is much higher than the assessed amount i.e. 4,47,146.00 and the assessee is taking liberty of not maintaining proper books of accounts as per the provisions of section 44ADA. 4. That the amount made through

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

3 5. The appellate the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed on 23.03.2024. The assessee has attached certain medical certificates. The reasons being given is that there is medical emergency and, therefore, I was there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, I condone the delay and the appeal of the assessee is admitted

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

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 19/RAN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

3,00,000/- especially in view of the fact that there was no agreement to make any payment under Section 194C and therefore provision of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in this case. Even if the appellant was liable to deduct TDS then only 30% of the amount can be disallowed. 1.1 For that the learned

SACHIN PODDAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEPUR

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

ITA 87/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay. 3. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the appellant submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 88/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay. 3. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the appellant submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice