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.

1,955 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad227Mumbai179Hyderabad162Chennai152Delhi129Kolkata120Jaipur113Pune111Bangalore110Lucknow84Surat79Visakhapatnam76Patna66Rajkot60Chandigarh47Indore44Amritsar34Raipur27Agra22Jabalpur18Cochin16Nagpur16Allahabad12Cuttack11Guwahati10Dehradun9Panaji7Jodhpur7Ranchi4SC2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 69A131Addition to Income81Section 14760Section 14854Section 14452Cash Deposit43Unexplained Money41Section 143(3)37Section 142(1)36Section 250

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

ITA 819/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B. Venugopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250Section 69A

69A of the Act. Against this assessee went in appeal before NFAC, who has confirmed it. Against this, assessee is once again in appeal before us. 2.1 There was a delay of 424 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has explained that assessee is of 74 years old and not well acquainted and conversant with

AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,955 · Page 1 of 98

...
34
Condonation of Delay34
Section 153A30
ITA 1367/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 151ASection 250

condonation, duly explained and corroborated by the Appellant , a senior citizen. (Issue : Rejection of the delay solely on the ground of the length thereof, rather than the underlying reasons). B. Grounds concerning legality of the Reassessment Proceeding. B 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law , given the alleged escapement

VINAYA PRASANNA KULKARNI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5726/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

For Respondent: Mr. Haridas Bhatt
Section 115BSection 69A

69A of the Act as unexplained money may please be deleted. please be deleted. GROUND III Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni A. On the facts and circumstances A. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the of the case, and in Law, the learned ITO Ward 4(1) Thane ("AO") erred adding Rs.88,656/ learned

SARSWATI BAL KALYAN SAMITI,WAIDHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, JABALPUR

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

ITA 45/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Sarswati Bal Kalyan V. Income Tax Officer, Samiti Mandla Ward, Mandla Waidhan Distt – Singrauli (Mp)- Central Revenue Annexe 486886. Building, Jabalpur- 482001. Pan:Aadas7349Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. Hemant S. Modh, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura , Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. Hemant S. Modh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura , Sr. (DR)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 263Section 69A

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) made best judgment assessment and assessed income at Rs.22,28,765/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who also dismissed the appeal on the basis of delay in preferring the appeal ex-parte to the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this

HITESH SURESH JADHAV,KALHER, THANE vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), KALYAN, KALYAN

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

ITA 771/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Section 69A of the Income tax Act. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the cash amounts aggregating to INR 23,00,000 deposited in the bank account during demonetisation period were out of gifts received in cash from the family members. 2. The Appellant prays to set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). 3. Each

BISWAJIT ROY,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , JALPAIGURI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 866/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

condoning a delay of 436 days before him. 1.2 Vide his order dated 30.08.2021, the Ld.AO has made an addition of Rs. 4,28,29,080/- u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the Ld. AO on this point deserve to be extracted: 2 Biswajit Roy “4. Perusal of the Suspicious Transactions Report (STR) reveals the following modus operandi

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 260A

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. A. THE FACTS 3. The appellant-assessee carried on business as carriage contractor for bitumen loaded from oil companies namely HPCL, IOCL and BPCL from Haldia. The goods were to be delivered to various divisions of the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar. According to the appellant, it has been in the business

JIYAUDDIN KHAN,MAHARAJGANJ, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ, MAHARAJGANJ, UTTAR PRADESH

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

ITA 139/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Jiyauddin Khan V. Ito-1(4) Bhitauli Bazar, Maharjganj, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharajganj-273302. Maharajganj, Maharajganj-273301. Pan:Bafpk3621P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 69A

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits. 3. In this case, assessment order dated 16.03.2023 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed

KUMUD BAJAJ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 782/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

section 69A of the Act and determined her income at Rs.27,94,010/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 01 year and 07 months, therefore, the CIT(A) declined to condone

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 425/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making addition of entire contract receipts to the tune

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 423/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making addition of entire contract receipts to the tune

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 563/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making addition of entire contract receipts to the tune

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 422/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making addition of entire contract receipts to the tune

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence failed to prove the findings to prove Ld. CIT(A) on same. Additional Submission It is respectfully submitted that in the present case the assessee was represented by an Authorised Representative who is himself a High Court practitioner. The expectation of candour and accuracy is, therefore, much higher. In spite of this

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence failed to prove the findings to prove Ld. CIT(A) on same. Additional Submission It is respectfully submitted that in the present case the assessee was represented by an Authorised Representative who is himself a High Court practitioner. The expectation of candour and accuracy is, therefore, much higher. In spite of this

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence failed to prove the findings to prove Ld. CIT(A) on same. Additional Submission It is respectfully submitted that in the present case the assessee was represented by an Authorised Representative who is himself a High Court practitioner. The expectation of candour and accuracy is, therefore, much higher. In spite of this

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence failed to prove the findings to prove Ld. CIT(A) on same. Additional Submission It is respectfully submitted that in the present case the assessee was represented by an Authorised Representative who is himself a High Court practitioner. The expectation of candour and accuracy is, therefore, much higher. In spite of this

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2063/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 153C

delay due to genuine reasons due to genuine reasons, same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek BasotiaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69A

condone the delay as the assessee was vigilant and was prevented by sufficient cause and therefore, we admit this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the sale proceeds from the sale of rural agricultural land as income u/s 69A. 4 Roshal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

ITA 251/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

delay is condoned in filing the cross objection.\n8. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an\nIndividual. The assessee has filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.)\n2017-18, on 31/01/2018, declaring therein total income of Rs. Nil/-. The return\nof income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later