Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

83 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 148clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai738 Mumbai722 Delhi513 Kolkata460 Ahmedabad336 Bangalore280 Pune270 Hyderabad259 Jaipur255 Surat220 Indore145 Karnataka141 Chandigarh138 Amritsar108 Visakhapatnam93 Rajkot91 Lucknow90 Cochin83 Patna79 Nagpur57 Raipur52 Calcutta46 Panaji44 Cuttack42 Agra38 Jabalpur31 Guwahati25 Allahabad20 Dehradun15 Varanasi14 SC9 Jodhpur8 Telangana8 Ranchi7 Punjab & Haryana2 Himachal Pradesh2 Orissa2 Rajasthan1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 148111 Section 80P93 Section 139(1)54 Condonation of Delay48 Addition to Income34 Section 14732 Section 14428 Deduction28 Section 142(1)25

SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 451/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR

Section 144B(6)(vii)Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

delay was condoned vide order dated 19.05.2023. However, prior to this, the case was taken up for scrutiny under Section 148

Showing 1–20 of 83 · Page 1 of 5

Section 80P(2)(a)24

Section 143(3)24

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

condoning the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal as requested by the assessee in column 14 & 15 of form no. 35 filed on 28.09.2022 on the reasons that assessee has not shown any sufficient cause. 7. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 22.12.2023, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal

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

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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued

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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued

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

For Appellant: \nShri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: \nShri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

section\n139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the\nappellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless\nAssessment Centre (hereinafter called \"the AO\"), based on the\ninformation that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion\nthat income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148\nof the Act was issued

PANTHEERANKAVE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD -2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 368/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pantheerankav Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Olavanna, Kozhikode 673019 [Pan: Aaaap6394F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 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 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That 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. The Appellant Had Not Filed 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 Made

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the appellant society had not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it can be said that there was no claim made in the return of income. In the absence of claim

VENGOLA SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 565/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 270ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely on the reason that the return of income was filed belatedly. This issue is no longer res integra, as it is covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali

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

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

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

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

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

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

SNDP YOGAM VAIKOM UNION,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD-1, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 823/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Ms. Divya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015-16. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the account maintained with Union Bank of India aggregating to Rs. 4,16,87,460/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter

SNDP YOGAM VAIKOM UNION,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 824/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Divya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015-16. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the account maintained with Union Bank of India aggregating to Rs. 4,16,87,460/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter

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

condonation of delay process, and therefore, the assessee lost its opportunity to make a valid claim for deduction. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the assessee being a co-operative society is not required to file its return of income, and thus the filing

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

ITA 782/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction in a return of income filed by the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-op. Bank

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

ITA 781/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction in a return of income filed by the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-op. Bank

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

ITA 783/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction in a return of income filed by the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-op. Bank

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel