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.

81 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad234Mumbai180Hyderabad157Chennai149Delhi133Jaipur117Kolkata117Pune113Bangalore109Lucknow87Surat81Visakhapatnam66Patna60Chandigarh55Rajkot46Indore41Amritsar37Cochin30Raipur29Agra22Guwahati21Jabalpur17Nagpur16Allahabad12Dehradun9Cuttack9Jodhpur7Panaji7Varanasi4Ranchi4SC2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69A115Addition to Income80Section 14868Section 14449Section 14746Section 25044Section 271(1)(c)41Cash Deposit36Penalty34Condonation of Delay

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 628/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69ASection 80C

condone the delay in both appeals of the assessee. 11. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1(in ITA No.628/SRT/2023), therefore, I dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as “not pressed”. 12. Now, I take ground

Showing 1–20 of 81 · Page 1 of 5

25
Section 143(3)24
Section 115B21

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 629/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69ASection 80C

condone the delay in both appeals of the assessee. 11. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1(in ITA No.628/SRT/2023), therefore, I dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as “not pressed”. 12. Now, I take ground

BHAVIN ARUNBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 456/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

69A of the Act. 5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that appeal filed

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 52/SRT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 876 days in filing all the appeals is condoned. 11. Now adverting to the facts of case on merit. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration that is assessment year (AY) 2009-10, declaring income of Rs.2,57,673/- on 15.10.2009. Subsequently, case of assessee

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 876 days in filing all the appeals is condoned. 11. Now adverting to the facts of case on merit. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration that is assessment year (AY) 2009-10, declaring income of Rs.2,57,673/- on 15.10.2009. Subsequently, case of assessee

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 51/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 876 days in filing all the appeals is condoned. 11. Now adverting to the facts of case on merit. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration that is assessment year (AY) 2009-10, declaring income of Rs.2,57,673/- on 15.10.2009. Subsequently, case of assessee

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

I K CORPORATION,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 790/SRT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

69A of the Act. Total income was determined at Rs.81,51,500/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). 6. There was delay of 437 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant has submitted application for condonation of delay, where it was submitted that the affairs of the assessee-firm were handled

I K CORPORATION ,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 789/SRT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

69A of the Act. Total income was determined at Rs.81,51,500/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). 6. There was delay of 437 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant has submitted application for condonation of delay, where it was submitted that the affairs of the assessee-firm were handled

VISHAL ENTERPRISE,VYARA vs. NFAC,DELHI, ITO WARD 1, BARDOLI, INCOME TAX OFFICE-BARDOLI

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

ITA 1034/SRT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1034/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Vishal Enterprise, Vs. The Ito, Vyara S.O., Vyara, Surat – 394650, Ward – 1, Gujarat Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfv2047E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2025

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 06.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the basis of facts and circumstances

RAZAK ABDULKARIM MANSURI,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 352/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha&Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M JAGASETH, CAFor Respondent: Shri AJAY UKE, SR. DR
Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 69A

condonation of delay. During the period under consideration, the appellant was commission agent. He was engaged in a distributorship of Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd and had earned commission income from the same. He had earned rent ~ 2 ~ ITA- 352/SRT/2024 Razak Abdulkarim Mansuri income from the house property and interest income. The appellant is filling his return of income regularly

SHAILESH DEVRAJBHAI PADMANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 551/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.551/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Hearing) Shailesh Devrajbhai Padmani Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(5), बनाम/ A/503, Swarg Residency, Surat, Room No. 608, 6Nd Floor, Vs. Laxmikant Ashram Road, Nr. Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Hathiwala Mandir, Surat-395 Surat-395 001 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aoupp 6320 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

section 69A of the I.T. Act as unexplained money. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of appeal.” 3. In the instant

PARESHBHAI KHODABHAI GODHANI,SURAT vs. NFAC, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SURAT

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

ITA 153/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Pareshbhai Khodabhai Godhani, I.T.O., 121, 122, Ishwarkrupa Society, B/H. Ward 2(3)(3), Vs. Laxman Nagar Society, Laxman Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Punagam Road, Punagam, Surat. Surat-394210 (Gujarat) Pan No. Anepg 8437 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 144Section 254(1)Section 69A

69A. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer by taxing the addition by taking the rate @ 77.25% by attracting S. 115BBE instead of normal tax rate. 4. Even otherwise the amendment in the provision of Section 115BBE