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.

24 results for “condonation of delay”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna467Delhi273Mumbai258Pune204Chennai160Bangalore158Kolkata104Ahmedabad68Hyderabad66Jaipur55Indore41Nagpur39Chandigarh38Lucknow32Cochin24Karnataka23Surat21Visakhapatnam19Raipur16Amritsar13Agra12Rajkot11Jodhpur10Jabalpur8Cuttack6Allahabad4Dehradun4Panaji3SC2Telangana2Varanasi2Guwahati2Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 15426Section 143(3)24Section 80P15Section 80P(2)(a)13Rectification u/s 15413Deduction11Addition to Income11Condonation of Delay11Section 143(1)

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)

rectification order to be passed. After receipt of the order u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act on 01/05/2024 which was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, thereafter the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 96 days ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page

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

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 44A6
Section 2506
Limitation/Time-bar5

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)

rectification order to be passed. After receipt of the order u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act on 01/05/2024 which was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, thereafter the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 96 days ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page

BENEDICT WILFRED,THIRUVANANATHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANATHAPURAM

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

ITA 64/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2012-13 Benedict Wilfred .......... Appellant 513, 350 Punchiri, Kottappuram, Vizhinjam, Thiruvananthapuram-695521. Pan: Ahvpb6093J Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1(1), Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant By: Shri Shaji V Nair, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Shaji V Nair, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154

condone the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of running restaurant. The Return of Income for the AY 2012-13 was filed on 16/01/2013 declaring a total income

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

rectification, was the only recourse available in law. No notices u/s. 148 (which proceedings are even otherwise for the benefit of the Revenue)were issued, so that the assessee stating that the returns of September, 2018 were in response to notices u/s. 148, is again incorrect, with in fact the return/s mentioning the date/s of the Intimation/s u/s

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

rectification, was the only recourse available in law. No notices u/s. 148 (which proceedings are even otherwise for the benefit of the Revenue)were issued, so that the assessee stating that the returns of September, 2018 were in response to notices u/s. 148, is again incorrect, with in fact the return/s mentioning the date/s of the Intimation/s u/s

CHAKKITTAPARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CALICUT vs. ITO WARD 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

delay of 48 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4.1 In this case, the ld. AO has denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P of the Act while processing the return u/s Chakkittapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Calicut Page 5 of 5 143(1) of the Act dated 29.8.2016. Against this assessee filed

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 50C

rectification order u/s. 154 dated 17.11.2020 was passed for the reason that for the purpose of stamp duty in respect of the property sold by the assessee, the value considered was Rs.1,22,94,000 whereas the assessee has computed the capital gain taking the sale consideration as per the Deed i.e., Rs.1,01,40,000. The assessee contended before

THE KANGAZHA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KANGAZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 414/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kangazha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kangazha P.O., Kottayam 686541 [Pan: Aadat7325H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 03.10.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of 2 Kangazha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed On 26.09.2018 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Of Rs. 1,49,79,478/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-2, Thiruvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.03.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 1,49,70,478/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P By Holding That The Appellant Society Is Engaged In Activities Other Than The Activities For Which It Was Formed.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)Section 80P

rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act before the CIT(A) on 29.01.2024, which is pending disposal. Thus he submits 3 Kangazha Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. that the delay had occurred on account of pursuing alternative remedy. Thus he submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned

SEA CASTLE AN AYURVEDIC AND LEISURE HOTEL(HILL & SEA VIEW AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 988/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

condoned. 7. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently opposed to condemnation of delay as no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. 8. I have carefully gone through the averments made in the petition seeking condemnation of delay. From the averments made in the petition it is clear that the appellant had not shown any sufficient cause

SEA CASTLE AN AYURVEDIC AND LEISURE HOTEL(HILL & SEA VIEW AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 987/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

condoned. 7. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently opposed to condemnation of delay as no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. 8. I have carefully gone through the averments made in the petition seeking condemnation of delay. From the averments made in the petition it is clear that the appellant had not shown any sufficient cause

THE KOOVAPPALLY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3949,KOVAPPALLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 389/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Koovappally Service Co-Op. .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No. 3949, Koovappally Kanjirappally, Kottayam [Pan: Aaajt 0739 R] Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P

condonation of delay on the following grounds:- “a. The appellant is not tech-savvy and is not well-versed in the operation of the Income Tax e-filing portal. The said portal and related communications were being handled by the appellant's Chartered Accountant's office. Due to inadvertence and oversight, both the appellant and the Chartered Accountant missed

PERINGANDOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVA BANK LTD,ATHANI, THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, we dismiss these I

ITA 230/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Peringandoor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd .......... Appellant 11/102A, Athani P O, Athani, Thrissur-680581. Pan: Aadap3407G Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2(1), Thrissur. Appellant By: Shri Ramdas M, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

condonation of delay by stating that the delay had occurred on account of pursuing of alternative remedy of rectification petition U/s. 154

KADAVATHUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, KANNUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 460/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

154 petition before the learned CIT(A). Since the learned CIT(A) had not passed any order pursuant to the rectification petition, immediately appeal was filed. Thus, it was submitted that the delay had occurred and, therefore, the delay may be condoned. 8. We have carefully gone through the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay. Admittedly

KADAVATHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THALASESRY,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, KANNUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 459/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

154 petition before the learned CIT(A). Since the learned CIT(A) had not passed any order pursuant to the rectification petition, immediately appeal was filed. Thus, it was submitted that the delay had occurred and, therefore, the delay may be condoned. 8. We have carefully gone through the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay. Admittedly

KADAVATHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, KANNUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 461/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

154 petition before the learned CIT(A). Since the learned CIT(A) had not passed any order pursuant to the rectification petition, immediately appeal was filed. Thus, it was submitted that the delay had occurred and, therefore, the delay may be condoned. 8. We have carefully gone through the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay. Admittedly

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

condonation by the Apex Court in Suo Motu WP(C) No.3/2020, dated 10/01/2022, excluding the period from 15/3/2020 to 28/02/2022 in reckoning the delay in computing limitation under law, and the hearing accordingly proceeded with. The assessee is a company manufacturing electrical cables, pumps, solar water heaters, etc., and trading in electrical and electronic goods. Revision of it’s impugned

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

ITA 667/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273Section 44Section 44ASection 80P

U/S 273B of the income tax Act 1961. 12. For the above and other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing the appeal may be allowed.” 3. Learned DR vehemently submits that both the lower authorities have rightly levied the impugned sec.271B penalty on account of assessee’s delay in filing its tax audit report(s) during

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

ITA 879/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273Section 44Section 44ASection 80P

U/S 273B of the income tax Act 1961. 12. For the above and other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing the appeal may be allowed.” 3. Learned DR vehemently submits that both the lower authorities have rightly levied the impugned sec.271B penalty on account of assessee’s delay in filing its tax audit report(s) during

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/COCH/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

154 of the Act (vide application dated 16.06.2020) and the same is pending disposal. The CIT(A) in the impugned order has directed the AO to dispose off the said rectification application dated 16.06.2020. Moreover, if assessee is advised to file an appeal as against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, a liberal approach may be taken

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

154 of the Act (vide application dated 16.06.2020) and the same is pending disposal. The CIT(A) in the impugned order has directed the AO to dispose off the said rectification application dated 16.06.2020. Moreover, if assessee is advised to file an appeal as against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, a liberal approach may be taken