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.

171 results for “condonation of delay”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai948Mumbai598Delhi518Hyderabad509Ahmedabad447Pune412Kolkata392Bangalore345Jaipur255Chandigarh240Amritsar187Cochin171Visakhapatnam169Surat166Indore139Lucknow129Patna126Raipur113Rajkot104Agra87Cuttack81Nagpur71Panaji62Calcutta37Allahabad34Jabalpur31Jodhpur30Guwahati25Karnataka23Varanasi20Dehradun10Ranchi7SC5Telangana3

Key Topics

Cash Deposit70Addition to Income64Condonation of Delay54Section 143(3)45Section 14838Section 133(6)36Demonetization28Section 80P26Unexplained Money

SRI.MATHEW PHILIP,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year:2015-16

Section 69

condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- made by the Assessing Authority u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. Commissioner

SITARAM THRIKKUR SUBBARAMAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 397/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman .......... Appellant Xxxi 289 Lakshmi Nivas, Pushpagiri Thrissur - 680002 [Pan: Aiops8626E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

Showing 1–20 of 171 · Page 1 of 9

...
23
Section 14719
Reassessment18
Section 139(1)17
For Appellant: Shri Jai Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned lower authorities made addition on cash deposits

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250

delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. Now the brief fact of the case are that as per the information, the assessee has made substantial cash deposit

SITARAM THRIKKUR SUBBARAMAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 398/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman .......... Appellant Xxxi 289 Lakshmi Nivas, Pushpagiri Thrissur - 680002 [Pan: Aiops8626E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69A

cash deposits and also failed to prove that the property sold was jointly held along with family members. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 127 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with

SHRI. MUTTAMTHOTTIL PAULOSE JOY,ANGAMALY vs. THE ITO WARD 2, ALUVA, ALUVA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 843/COCH/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The ld AR submitted that various notices said to have been issued were not noticed by the assessee or the authorized representative. In any view of the matter, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that they were similar deposits

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 54/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 165/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

BAIJU LEKSHMANAN,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2017-18 Baiju Lekshmanan Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, V. Alappuzha Marackasseril, Atiramthengu, Alumpeedika Po, Prayar South, Kollam – 690547. Pan : Ambpl8921A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 17 Days. An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay For 17 Days Has Been Filed By The Assessee Explaining Reasons For Such Delay. We, After Considering The Application For Condoning The Delay, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Shaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 Baiju Lekshmanan 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act based on information that the assessee had made cash deposits

ULLATTIL SILLU,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 131/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.P.Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3 ITA No.131/Coch/2025. Ullattil Sillu. 6. I heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The only issue that arises for my consideration is whether there was justification to sustain the addition of Rs.2,42,000 being the cash deposit

KIZHAKKEKARA SIVARAMAN NAIR UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 629/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kizhakkekara Sivaraman Niar .......... Appellant Unnikrishnan Nair Kizhakkekara House, Palakuzha Post Koothatuukulam, Ernakulam 686662 [Pan: Alepk0704G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Thodupuzha

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. The learned A.R. submits that the cash deposits

M/S.OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES P. LTD,,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT,, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

delay in filing the appeal before us and hence, we condone the same and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4 I.T.A. No./361/C/2017 2. On merits, the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the CIT to pass order u/s. 263 of the Act. The assessee has also challenged the following directions of the CIT: A From out of various sources

PHILIPPOSE VARGHESE,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO,WARD 3, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 279/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 46/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Philippose Varghese .......... Appellant Puthenchiramel, Cheppad, Alappuzha 690513 [Pan: Akcpv4524A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

deposits. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A),who dismissed the appeal for non-compliance by holding that a person of 83 years old could not have held so much of cash balance. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, there is a delay

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 559/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

cash deposits, the CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the file of the AO for due verification. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset we find that there is a delay

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 561/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

cash deposits, the CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the file of the AO for due verification. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset we find that there is a delay

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 560/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

cash deposits, the CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the file of the AO for due verification. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 155 days in filing

SHRI. SANTHAKUMAR DAMODARAN NADAR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 950/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

cash deposits in computing income. 4 | P a g e Santhakumar Damodaran Nadar v. ITO 5. We may at this stage pause and come back to our consideration of the condonation of delay

SRI.THOMAS EAPEN,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 115BSection 68

condone the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 on 16/03/2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,37,160/-. The assessment u/s. I.T.A. No. 451/Coch/2019 143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed o 21/12/2017

BHASKARAKAIMAL KUREECKAL BHAVANAM GIRISH,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD 1, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed

ITA 819/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Vishnu Das K, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

cash deposits were made out of sale proceeds of the stamps. However, the CIT(A) without condoning the delay of 345 days