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.

40 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 153clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi367Chennai355Mumbai203Bangalore170Karnataka118Jaipur108Hyderabad102Chandigarh92Kolkata78Pune75Amritsar63Ahmedabad63Cochin40Visakhapatnam38Surat33Nagpur30Indore27Panaji17Kerala17Cuttack17Rajkot13Lucknow11Guwahati10Raipur9Telangana8Jodhpur7Dehradun7SC7Rajasthan5Calcutta4Orissa4Jabalpur3Andhra Pradesh3Allahabad2Varanasi2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Agra1Patna1

Key Topics

Addition to Income31Section 15323Section 153A22Condonation of Delay19Section 13218Limitation/Time-bar18Section 143(3)17Section 234E14Section 271(1)(c)

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 170/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

14
Penalty14
Section 25013
Section 249(2)12

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 162/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 167/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 172/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 171/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 169/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 168/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 163/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 161/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 164/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 166/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

M/S KADIRUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

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

ITA 104/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kadirur Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd., The Income Tax Kadirur, Officer, Thalassery, Ward – 2, Kannur, Kannur. Kerala – 670 642. Vs. Pan: Aaffk6859E Appellant Respondent : Shri Arun Raj .S, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri Arun Raj .S
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 51Section 80p

153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and Page 12 of 16 reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay

THE AD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALAPPUZHA vs. N S S KARAYOGAM, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 505/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, Advocate
Section 143Section 148Section 153Section 254

condone the delay of 32 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. ITA No.505/Coch/2018. 2 M/s.NSS Karayogam Br. No.1365. 3. The solitary issue that is raised by the Revenue is whether the assessment completed vide order dated 28.03.2014 pursuant to ITAT’s order dated 21.10.2011 was barred by limitation u/s 153

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)

153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Furthermore, the ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page 10 of 19 Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education

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)

153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Furthermore, the ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page 10 of 19 Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education

SRI.T.ABDUL MAJEED PROPRIETOR,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 70/COCH/2017[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

section 153(2A) of the Act.” “The grounds of appeal regarding the time barring of the assessment was omitted to be included in the original Grounds of Appeal by an inadvertent ITA Nos.70-74/Coch/2017 5 Sri.T Abdul Majeed, Prop.Fair Pharma. omission and the appellant may request to condone the delay

SRI.T.ABDUL MAJEED PROPRIETOR,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 74/COCH/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

section 153(2A) of the Act.” “The grounds of appeal regarding the time barring of the assessment was omitted to be included in the original Grounds of Appeal by an inadvertent ITA Nos.70-74/Coch/2017 5 Sri.T Abdul Majeed, Prop.Fair Pharma. omission and the appellant may request to condone the delay

SRI.T.ABDUL MAJEED PROPRIETOR,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 73/COCH/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

section 153(2A) of the Act.” “The grounds of appeal regarding the time barring of the assessment was omitted to be included in the original Grounds of Appeal by an inadvertent ITA Nos.70-74/Coch/2017 5 Sri.T Abdul Majeed, Prop.Fair Pharma. omission and the appellant may request to condone the delay

SRI.T.ABDUL MAJEED PROPRIETOR,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 72/COCH/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

section 153(2A) of the Act.” “The grounds of appeal regarding the time barring of the assessment was omitted to be included in the original Grounds of Appeal by an inadvertent ITA Nos.70-74/Coch/2017 5 Sri.T Abdul Majeed, Prop.Fair Pharma. omission and the appellant may request to condone the delay