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.

59 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 6clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai3,998Mumbai3,819Delhi3,091Kolkata2,085Pune1,787Bangalore1,664Ahmedabad1,368Hyderabad1,176Jaipur880Patna741Surat617Chandigarh560Indore528Nagpur483Cochin440Visakhapatnam421Raipur408Lucknow366Amritsar326Rajkot319Karnataka296Cuttack277Panaji174Agra146Dehradun103Calcutta98Guwahati89Jodhpur80Jabalpur64Allahabad64SC62Ranchi59Telangana48Varanasi37Andhra Pradesh16Orissa10Rajasthan10Kerala7Punjab & Haryana6Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)58Section 27438Penalty25Condonation of Delay22Addition to Income19Limitation/Time-bar17Section 153A16Section 12A15Section 147

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

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 154, which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer. The appeal against the said order was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of more than 6

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

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 154, which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer. The appeal against the said order was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of more than 6

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3

10
Section 119
Section 1489
Section 132(1)9

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

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 154, which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer. The appeal against the said order was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of more than 6

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

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 154, which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer. The appeal against the said order was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of more than 6

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

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 154, which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer. The appeal against the said order was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of more than 6

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 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was conducted in the case of assessee

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 Tax Act, 1961. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), no proper and reasonable opportunities were provided

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 Tax Act, 1961. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), no proper and reasonable opportunities were provided

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

section 115BBE of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), no proper and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee and the appeal of assessee was dismissed by passing ex parte order. The assessee prayed to give one more opportunity and the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other

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

JAMSHEDPUR MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION,JAMSHEDPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, PATNA, PATNA

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

ITA 157/RAN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jamshedpur Management Association, C.I.T.(Exemption), 18, Centre For Excellence, Ch Area Patna Vs. (East), Jamshedpur-831001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaeaj 2108 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is a society and filed an application in Form 10AB before the ld. CIT(E), Patna on 20/10/2022 for grant of regular registration under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A read with 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)

section did not condone the delay in filing of appeal. In our considered opinion, such delay needs to be P a g e 2 | 4 ITA No.03/RAN /2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 condoned, because the assessee has been claiming that due to the illness of family members, the appeal was not filed within the time. In view of forgoing

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)

6. For that other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal." 2. We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of eight days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of Chandravanshi Educational Foundation Vs CIT(E) delay was filed mentioning the fact

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

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

condone the delay in filing appeal and admit the same for hearing and adjudication. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant society is an association of young entrepreneurs and it is a society registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The case of appellant was selected for limited

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

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 AHRC-5 were payment made to the assessee in the name of various nomenclature are actually payment made

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

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 AHRC-5 were payment made to the assessee in the name of various nomenclature are actually payment made

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

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

ITA 4/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

delay of 173 days in filing both these appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the CPC, Bangalore while processing the return under Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) has not been allowed deduction under Section 80IB

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

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

ITA 5/RAN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

delay of 173 days in filing both these appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the CPC, Bangalore while processing the return under Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) has not been allowed deduction under Section 80IB