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.

19 results for “condonation of delay”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai555Mumbai517Delhi429Ahmedabad349Kolkata311Pune230Jaipur166Hyderabad157Surat120Bangalore116Chandigarh103Visakhapatnam87Rajkot82Indore77Raipur73Patna67Agra52Nagpur52Lucknow46Amritsar38Cuttack31Guwahati23Cochin19Jodhpur18Panaji14Dehradun14Jabalpur11Varanasi9Ranchi6SC6Allahabad3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 14812Section 234E12Addition to Income9Section 282(1)8Section 200A8Section 1447Section 139(1)7Condonation of Delay6Exemption

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 53/COCH/2023[2015-16 QTR 2]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

Assessing Officer (AO) has no power to condone, the said fee was levied vide the impugned processing, at sums ranging from Rs. 12,200 to Rs. 68,000. Though appealable, no appeal was filed by the assessee. Appeal in each case was, however, as against the due date, i.e., latest by 31.8.2015, filed on 29.11.2021, i.e., at a delay

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

5
Limitation/Time-bar5
Section 1474
Section 271(1)(c)4
ITA 54/COCH/2023[2015-16 (Qurt-3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

Assessing Officer (AO) has no power to condone, the said fee was levied vide the impugned processing, at sums ranging from Rs. 12,200 to Rs. 68,000. Though appealable, no appeal was filed by the assessee. Appeal in each case was, however, as against the due date, i.e., latest by 31.8.2015, filed on 29.11.2021, i.e., at a delay

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 55/COCH/2023[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

Assessing Officer (AO) has no power to condone, the said fee was levied vide the impugned processing, at sums ranging from Rs. 12,200 to Rs. 68,000. Though appealable, no appeal was filed by the assessee. Appeal in each case was, however, as against the due date, i.e., latest by 31.8.2015, filed on 29.11.2021, i.e., at a delay

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 52/COCH/2023[2015-16 (QT1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

Assessing Officer (AO) has no power to condone, the said fee was levied vide the impugned processing, at sums ranging from Rs. 12,200 to Rs. 68,000. Though appealable, no appeal was filed by the assessee. Appeal in each case was, however, as against the due date, i.e., latest by 31.8.2015, filed on 29.11.2021, i.e., at a delay

GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 38/COCH/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Govind G.Nair,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 148

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section 148 of the Income- tax Act and rest of the grounds are related to the additions made

GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 96/COCH/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Govind G.Nair,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 148

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section 148 of the Income- tax Act and rest of the grounds are related to the additions made

M/S.GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 97/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Govind G.Nair,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 148

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section 148 of the Income- tax Act and rest of the grounds are related to the additions made

SHAMSUDEEN ABDUL KHADAR,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOLLAM

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

ITA 768/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar .......... Appellant Nusaifa Manzil, Chithara, Madathara Kottarakkara, Kollam 691541 [Pan: Arjpa0218Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Appellant Had Not Filed The Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 12,07,500/- During Ay 2017-18 In Bank Account Maintained With Kerala Grameen Bank, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Therefore, The Ao

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reopened the assessment after obtaining necessary approval from appropriate authorities by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 31.12.2019. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed return of income on 29.05.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 3,69,350/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Gopi K,CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay in both cases. ITA No. 258/Kochi/2025 – A.Y. 2012–13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 10.03.2015, accepting the loss

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Gopi K,CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay in both cases. ITA No. 258/Kochi/2025 – A.Y. 2012–13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 10.03.2015, accepting the loss

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 725/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. In response to the show cause notice the appellant had not filed

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 722/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. In response to the show cause notice the appellant had not filed

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 723/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. In response to the show cause notice the appellant had not filed

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 724/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. In response to the show cause notice the appellant had not filed

SONIYA DAVID LATHIKA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 667/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Soniya David Lathika The Ito, Ward-2(3) S. S. Nivas, Vizhinjam, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Vs. Mukkola, Venganoor, Trivandrum-4 Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan/Gir No. Ajqpl 8228 A (Assessee) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Adarsh BFor Respondent: 13.03.2024
Section 10(37)Section 250

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee had filed the following grounds of appeal: 2 Soniya David Lathika vs. ITO 1. The order of the learned Assessing officer is against law, facts and circumstances of the case 2. The Officer erred in fixing long term capital gain at Rs 99,39,969 as against Nil claimed by the appellant. The appellant

ULAHANNAN MUDAKKALAYIL LEELA,KEEZHILLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, ALUVA, ALUVA

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

ITA 36/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

reopened u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). In UlahannanMudakkalayilLeela, Ernakulam Page 2 of 3 response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her return for the first time on 4.3.2022 declaring an income of Rs.3,37,130/-. Thereafter, the AO issued various notices to the assessee. However

ABOOBAKER,KASARGAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, (TPS), KASARGAD

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

ITA 709/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 144Section 148Section 68

condone the said delay in filing this appeal and proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Page 2 of 4 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is doing the business of wholesale and retail trading of sheep and goats and he earned income through selling the sheep and goats in the local market

M/S.THE PATTANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CHERTHALA vs. THE ITO, , ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 226/COCH/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 80A(5)Section 80P

delay is condoned and the appealis admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co- operative bank and engaged in the business of banking. For the impugned assessment years, the assessee did not file any return of income u/s.139(1) or 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thereafter the case

M/S.THE PATTANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CHERTHALA vs. THE ITO, , ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 227/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 80A(5)Section 80P

delay is condoned and the appealis admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co- operative bank and engaged in the business of banking. For the impugned assessment years, the assessee did not file any return of income u/s.139(1) or 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thereafter the case