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.

11 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 12A(1)(ac)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune227Ahmedabad142Mumbai122Jaipur86Chennai79Kolkata52Delhi44Calcutta34Hyderabad33Surat27Chandigarh24Rajkot23Nagpur18Bangalore16Lucknow14Amritsar11Cochin11Indore10Visakhapatnam6Agra5Patna5Jabalpur4Panaji4Jodhpur3Raipur2Guwahati2Ranchi2Dehradun2Allahabad2

Key Topics

Section 282(1)13Exemption11Section 14810Addition to Income8Condonation of Delay7Section 139(1)6Section 1446Section 142(1)5Natural Justice

PAVANA MANUEL XAVIER,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

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

ITA 572/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Padmanathan K.V., CAFor Respondent: \nSmt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

condone the delay and admit the\nappeal for adjudication.\n6. At the outset, I find that the NFAC issued notices through\nITBA portal, with remained uncomplied with. In my considered\nopinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as\nspecified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax\nAct

NADATHARA GRAMA VIKASANA SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

5
Cash Deposit5
Section 271(1)(c)4
Section 271(1)4
ITA 426/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Biju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case, ordinarily, the matter would have been remitted to the file of NFAC, however from the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that no proper service of notice

NADATHARA GRAMA VIKASANA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 425/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Biju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case, ordinarily, the matter would have been remitted to the file of NFAC, however from the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that no proper service of notice

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

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

ITA 365/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the appellant as the email ID provided in Form 35 belongs to the staff of the Chartered Accountant’s office who submitted the appeal. Since the staff left employment

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

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

ITA 366/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the appellant as the email ID provided in Form 35 belongs to the staff of the Chartered Accountant’s office who submitted the appeal. Since the staff left employment

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX COMMISIONER, MATTANCHERY

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

ITA 367/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the appellant as the email ID provided in Form 35 belongs to the staff of the Chartered Accountant’s office who submitted the appeal. Since the staff left employment

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 1161/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Cherian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282(1)Section 54Section 54F

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset we found that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the addition. We found from para 1 of the order

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)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions

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)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions

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)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions

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)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions