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 Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai520Kolkata334Mumbai329Delhi295Ahmedabad197Hyderabad176Jaipur157Bangalore128Pune95Surat79Indore60Amritsar56Rajkot54Chandigarh51Raipur46Nagpur41Calcutta39Visakhapatnam39Panaji34Lucknow33Patna26Cochin22Cuttack14Allahabad10Dehradun9Agra8Guwahati8Jodhpur7Jabalpur6Varanasi5Karnataka2SC1Ranchi1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 14815Section 1477Section 693Addition to Income3Section 124(3)(a)2Section 124(2)2Section 250(1)2Section 144r2Section 144

RISHIKESH SHUKLA,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, WARD - III (1), MIRZAPUR

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

ITA 124/VNS/2020[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi19 May 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Rishikesh Shukla, Income Tax Officer, S/O Shri K. P. Shukla, V. Ward-Iii(1), Sharma Colony, Mirzapur,U.P.. Waidhan,Singrauli-486886, Madhya Pradesh . Pan:Bcmps8094M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)

investment.” 3. At the outset, it is observed that this appeal is filed late beyond the time stipulated under the 1961 Act by 224 days. The assessee has filed an application requesting for condonation of delay. The reasons for filing this appeal delay as stated by the assessee beyond time stipulated u/s 253(3) in its application , is that

GUNJAN RUNGTA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

2
Reassessment2

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

ITA 50/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69

investment by the assessee and was added to the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC and submitted before it that the assessee had taken

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

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