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.

3 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai561Mumbai464Delhi405Kolkata371Ahmedabad222Hyderabad205Jaipur186Bangalore166Pune150Karnataka128Surat94Amritsar86Chandigarh76Indore72Rajkot51Visakhapatnam45Lucknow41Calcutta40Nagpur39Patna29Raipur29Cochin20Cuttack20Kerala18Allahabad14Dehradun13SC13Jodhpur12Telangana11Guwahati10Agra9Varanasi9Jabalpur7Panaji6Orissa5Ranchi3Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 405Section 194C3Condonation of Delay3Section 1472Section 692Section 1442Addition to Income2

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 Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 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

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: Disposed
ITAT Ranchi
23 Jun 2025
AY 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

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

condone the delay of 52 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for hearing on merit. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company and runs a hospital. The assessee filed return of income on 28/09/2013 disclosing total income of ₹ 37,09,380/-. The case was selected