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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai488Kolkata462Mumbai420Delhi313Ahmedabad259Bangalore188Hyderabad182Pune152Surat133Jaipur128Indore67Rajkot61Cochin60Chandigarh57Calcutta49Visakhapatnam48Lucknow47Amritsar45Raipur41Panaji40Nagpur40Patna35Agra20Cuttack19Allahabad16Jabalpur10Guwahati9Jodhpur7Dehradun5Varanasi5Ranchi3SC1Telangana1Orissa1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 14810Addition to Income3Section 124(3)(a)2Section 124(2)2Section 250(1)2Section 144r2Section 1442Section 143(2)2Section 147

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

condoning the delay citing the reasons for the delay in filing before the Delhi benches, if so advised. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2023. (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 26th September, 2023. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that after the judgement

DHRUV NARAIN SINGH,,GORAKHPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 1 (3),, GORAKHPUR

2
Cash Deposit2

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

ITA 24/VNS/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2008-09 Dhruv Narain Singh, Vs Income-Tax Officer, Bela, Pipraich, Ward – 1(3), Gorakhpur. Gorakhpur. Pan: Aoxpd7241P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shubham Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 18-12-2017 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Gorakhpur & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By 117 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. It Is Stated That The Appeal Papers Could Not Be Prepared In Time Due To Inadvertence At The End Of His Tax Consultants. Accordingly, We Are Of The View That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of Ld Cit(A) Rendered On The Following Issues:- (A) Adhoc Disallowance Made From Expenses Claimed On Hiring Of Generator. (B) Addition Of Rs.1,14,100/- Towards Unexplained Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. (C) Addition Of Rs.1,12,166/- Towards Deposits Received By Way Of Transfers. (D) Addition Towards Marriage Expenses Of The Daughter Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) rendered on the following issues:- (a) Adhoc disallowance made from expenses claimed on hiring of Generator. (b) Addition of Rs.1,14,100/- towards unexplained cash deposits made in the bank account of the assessee. (c) Addition of Rs.1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 02 (04),, BALLIA vs. PREM SHANKAR VERMA,, BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2017-18 The Income Tax Officer V. Shri Prem Shankar Verma Ward – 02(04) Sripur. Takarsan Ballia Ballia Tan/Pan:Adopv7563Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.03/Vns/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No.134/Vns/134] Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Prem Shankar Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Sripur. Takarsan Ward – 02(04) Ballia Ballia Tan/Pan:Adopv7563Q (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit this cross objection for hearing. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.68,81,228/- when the AO has pointed out various infirmities on the credit and debit entries

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 213/VNS/2019[201-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

unexplained money and deemed to be income of the assessee u/s 69A , which stood added to her income by the AO vide assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) . The assessee appeared in person along with her counsel before

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 214/VNS/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

unexplained money and deemed to be income of the assessee u/s 69A , which stood added to her income by the AO vide assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) . The assessee appeared in person along with her counsel before