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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai275Hyderabad149Bangalore94Kolkata85Mumbai85Delhi82Ahmedabad68Patna59Jaipur58Pune54Visakhapatnam52Lucknow51Surat34Chandigarh33Panaji31Rajkot29Amritsar29Indore26Agra23Raipur21Cuttack16Allahabad10Nagpur10Cochin7Jodhpur6Jabalpur4Dehradun2Ranchi1Calcutta1Varanasi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Cash Deposit7Demonetization7Section 80P6Section 142(1)6Condonation of Delay5Section 2504Section 1444Addition to Income4Section 1392

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 made during the demonetization

PRAVEEN SIDHARTHAN PILLAI,KOLLAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Section 115B2
Limitation/Time-bar2
Unexplained Money2

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

ITA 111/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 69

condone the delay of 43 days and proceed to decide the matter. 5. Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is an individual and resident of Karunagappalli, Kollam. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate. For the impugned assessment year, it is alleged that assessee

ANIL KUMAR PURUSHOTHAMANNAIR,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 867/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Stephen George, CCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 142(1)Section 144o

demonetization period. The assessee neither complied with the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act nor responded to the hearing notices issued from time to time. Under the circumstances, the AO proceeded with the framing of the assessment order u/s.144of the Act by making an addition of cash deposit of Rs.13,50,000 as unexplained money of the assessee vide

KANNANKULAM POULOSE JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 380/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kannankulam Poulose Johny, .......... Appellant Kannankulam House, Poovanchira Pananchery, Thrissur-680 652 [Pan: Acfpj 2655 M] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Johny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

demonetization period of Rs.5,00,000/- with Federal Bank, Pattikad Branch, the ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur (for short, 'AO') issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 26/02/2018. The assessee neither complied with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) nor letter issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act. In these circumstnnances, the AO was constrained to pass

PUNNILATH MEERAS RASHEED,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO,WARD 3, ALUVA

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

ITA 779/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: K P Pradeep, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 115BSection 144

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is an individual as per data available with the department has provided by the bank authorities the assessee had made large cash deposit in his Corporation Bank, Angamaly accounts during the demonetization

PUNNILATH MEERAS RASHEED,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO,WARD 3, ALUVA

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

ITA 780/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: K P Pradeep, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 115BSection 144

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is an individual as per data available with the department has provided by the bank authorities the assessee had made large cash deposit in his Corporation Bank, Angamaly accounts during the demonetization

ERAMALLOOR SERVICE CO-PERATIVE BANK LTDS NO.1175,CHERTHALA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 820/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.C.A.Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

demonetization period and no return of income is filed by it, notice under section 142(1)(i) of the Act was issued to the assessee directing it to file the return of income. However, the assessee failed to furnish the return of income either under section 139, on or before 31/03/2018, and also failed to furnish the return of income