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.

1,710 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 131clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata289Chennai212Delhi195Mumbai190Karnataka109Ahmedabad102Bangalore83Jaipur80Chandigarh55Hyderabad55Calcutta45Indore39Pune39Surat34Rajkot22Visakhapatnam21Panaji19Cochin19Nagpur16Lucknow13Guwahati11Amritsar11Jabalpur7Raipur7Telangana6Jodhpur5Varanasi5Kerala4Agra4SC3Orissa2Dehradun2Patna2Cuttack1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 250110Section 14860Addition to Income59Section 6845Section 14742Section 143(3)41Limitation/Time-bar31Section 13129Condonation of Delay25Section 144

SHRI NARESH KUMAR YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kumar VermaFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 147Section 148

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Class IV Government employee, working in the Indian Railways. For the year under consideration, the assessee did not file return of income, as his income was below the taxable limit. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. As per information available with

Showing 1–20 of 1,710 · Page 1 of 86

...
21
Section 26318
Disallowance17

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

condoned delay in preferring appeal by assessee and decide case on merits - Held, yes[Paras 23 to 25] [In favour of assessee] In view of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that in the instant case there is sufficient cause with assessee on account of which appeal could not be filed on time. Even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1317/CHNY/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1316/CHNY/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1318/CHNY/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1313/CHNY/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1314/CHNY/2017[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1315/CHNY/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 506/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 154

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is running his business under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s Arihant Builders & Developers. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed as time barred

ITA/371/2022HC Delhi12 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 260ASection 5

131 (2006) DLT 360, one of the arguments of the applicant Union of India seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was that the power to Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:12.12.2023 18:37:57 Signature Not Verified ITA 371/2022 & 526/2022 Page 9 of 19 pages condone delay has been conferred to do substantial justice

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

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

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1315/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the criterion. The criterion for condoning the delay is sufficiency of reason and not the length of the delay. 131

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1316/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the criterion. The criterion for condoning the delay is sufficiency of reason and not the length of the delay. 131

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRITBHAI K. THUMMAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

131–156, we find that the company has Revenue from operations of Rs. 8,55,41,652. Further, it has long-term borrowing of 3,90,15,064, from Karnataka bank Ltd. The company has fixed assets of Rs. 2,54,93,062. We further find that the company has trade payables of Rs. 1,83,68,844 in comparison

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 181/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 153ASection 253Section 5

131 (2006) DLT 360, one of the arguments of the applicant Union of India seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was that the power to condone delay has been conferred to do substantial justice and the court should adopt a liberal approach and the delay resulting from official Digitally Signed ITA 401/2023 Page 7 of 15 pages procedures

M/S M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANR

WP/223253/2020HC Karnataka15 Jul 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty W.P.No.223253/2020 (Gm-Res) C/W W.P.No.223254/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223255/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223256/2020 (Gm-Res) Between: M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd., Having Corporate Office At 2Nd Floor, Commercial Building No.1, Opp. Income Tax Building, Shankarsheth Road, Swaragate, Pune - 411 042, Maharashtra State. Rep. By Sri M.S.Mallikarjuna By His Gpa Holder, Sri Dhanaji Venkatrao Patil, Aged About 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/O Plot No.10, Konark Aditya Block, Golibar Maidan Chowk, Camp Pune - 411 001. …Petitioner

Section 34Section 34(3)Section 5

Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The delay of 131 days cannot be condoned. To do so, as the High

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 263Section 69

section 263 to us, appears to be a plausible explanation, and there is no doubt that in the consequent assessment, the assessee was assessed multiple times to its returned income, which forced him into action and he came to the consult another legal adviser on whose advise the present appeal was filed before us. The delay in filing of appeal

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2617/MUM/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025
Section 11(1)(c)Section 80G

condoned the delay while relying on\nthe judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese\nvs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) as referred in the decision of\nITAT Jodhpur Bench in ITA No. 278/Jodh/2023 order dated\n10.11.2023 wherein it was held that the words 'within six months of\ncommencement of its activities