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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 112clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka123Chennai118Mumbai89Delhi87Chandigarh75Kolkata56Bangalore54Ahmedabad52Jaipur49Calcutta39Amritsar36Hyderabad36Panaji20Pune20Indore15Surat12Cuttack11Lucknow7Nagpur7Guwahati6SC6Rajkot5Patna5Raipur4Agra4Jodhpur3Allahabad3Cochin3Telangana2Visakhapatnam2Rajasthan1Orissa1Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14812Section 14410Addition to Income10Section 143(3)8Section 687Section 2505Section 143(2)5Penalty5Limitation/Time-bar

CHINUBHAI VAGHJIBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.541 & 572/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(2), Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Room No. 416, Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Choksi Apartment, Shop Opp. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Jain Temple, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Vs. Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Income Tax Officer, Ward- 16, Chokshi Apartment, Opp. Jain 3(2)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Room Temple, Katargam, Surat-395004 4Th No. 416, Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpcps 0828 C (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil K. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 68

condone the delay.” 6. First, we shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.572/SRT/2019, for assessment year 2011-12. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 17.11.2017, declaring total income at Rs. 2,12,000/-. Later on, an information received by Assessing Officer that

5
Condonation of Delay5
Section 1474
Section 694

ITO, WARD 3(2)(2), SURAT vs. CHINUBHAI VAGHJIBHAI SHETH, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 541/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.541 & 572/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(2), Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Room No. 416, Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Choksi Apartment, Shop Opp. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Jain Temple, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Vs. Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Income Tax Officer, Ward- 16, Chokshi Apartment, Opp. Jain 3(2)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Room Temple, Katargam, Surat-395004 4Th No. 416, Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpcps 0828 C (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil K. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 68

condone the delay.” 6. First, we shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.572/SRT/2019, for assessment year 2011-12. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 17.11.2017, declaring total income at Rs. 2,12,000/-. Later on, an information received by Assessing Officer that

CHINUBHAI VAGHJIBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 572/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.541 & 572/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(2), Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Room No. 416, Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Choksi Apartment, Shop Opp. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Jain Temple, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Vs. Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Income Tax Officer, Ward- 16, Chokshi Apartment, Opp. Jain 3(2)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Room Temple, Katargam, Surat-395004 4Th No. 416, Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpcps 0828 C (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil K. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 68

condone the delay.” 6. First, we shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.572/SRT/2019, for assessment year 2011-12. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 17.11.2017, declaring total income at Rs. 2,12,000/-. Later on, an information received by Assessing Officer that

KISHOR RAMESHBHAI MEHTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

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

ITA 60/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 194ASection 194CSection 2(24)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68Section 69A

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that his consultant had filed physical appeal on 29.04.2016 and mentioned communication address in Form 35 against the assessment order. The NFAC issued notices on e-mail

SANJAY S JAIN,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 90/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.90/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjay S. Jain, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, B1/2017, Regent Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abtpj4942N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has opted the benefit of Vivad Se Viswas Scheme (in short “VSVS”) in respect of ITA No.90/SRT/2020 for assessment year 2008-09. However, the Department has not accepted the assessee’s claim under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. AMBUBHAI THAKORBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1020/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel बनाम/ Surat, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Choryasi, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 005 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ctopp 7620 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.9/Srt/2025 (A/O Ita No.1020/Srt/2024/ (Ay 2018-19) Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Surat, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, Vs. Choryasi, Surat-395 005 Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ctopp 7620 J (""यथ"/Respondent) (Co-Objector)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 48

section 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and Rule 46A(3) of the Income tax Rules, 1962. iv. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidences, which were not produced before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings, without appreciating the fact

M/S. C. J. GROUP & GAJRAS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,PANVEL, MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 2/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.02/Srt/2021 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan No. Aagfc 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on 24.03.2014. M/s C J Group & Gajras Builders & Developers 2. On perusal of record shows that impugned order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 24.08.2020, however, assessee has filed present appeal on 05.01.2021. Thus, there is delay of 65 days

TARA RAJU PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, , SURAT

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 195/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

condoned the delay in filing appeal. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening by referring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) wherein it was held that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not to be considered at the stage of reopening and that

SHRI RAJU MAGANLAL PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT. TAXATION, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

condoned the delay in filing appeal. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening by referring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) wherein it was held that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not to be considered at the stage of reopening and that

NAVINBHAI RATILAL IDRIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 694/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

delay of 362 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual had jointly sold immovable property along with 6 other co-owners at Moje Gam, Kathor, Surat on 24-05-2013 for a consideration of Rs.2,53,25,000/-. The Stamp Duty Valuation Authority determined the market

LATE PRIYANK NARENDRABHAI PATEL THROUGH HIS LH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-01 BARDOLI, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1300/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1300/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Priyank Narendrabhai Patel, Vs. Ito, Through His L/H Narendrabhai Patel, Ward – 2, At & Post – Tundi, Tal – Palsana, Bardoli Surat - 394315 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Asapp4783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

condoned the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal and ITA No.1300/SRT/2024/AY.2015-16 Late Priyank Narendrabhai Patel admitted the appeal for adjudication. He observed that since the assessee expired, the AO issued notices to the legal heir of the appellant. He set aside the order of AO passed u/s 144 for making a fresh assessment because the appellant

DIPEN JAYDEEPBHAI DHIMAR,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

ITA 131/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.131/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dipen Jaydeepbhai Dhimar, Vs. Ito, 1, Bajar Faliya, Valod, At & Po – Ward – 1, Talod, Tal – Tapi, Tapi – 394640, Bardoli Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amzpd6196K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 274Section 68

condoned the delay in filing appeal. He issued 4 notices fixing the hearing on 29.01.2021, 24.10.2024, 14.11.2024 and 20.01.2025. All the notices were duly served electronically on the registered e-mail id of the appellant and the status of the notices was shown as ‘Delivered’ in the ITBA portal. The CIT(A) observed that the appellant was not interested