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.

28 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 153(3)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai291Delhi248Mumbai145Bangalore113Karnataka110Chandigarh86Hyderabad79Kolkata64Jaipur62Amritsar62Pune60Ahmedabad51Cochin28Surat25Cuttack17Indore15Panaji10Nagpur10Visakhapatnam9Raipur9Guwahati8Lucknow6Telangana6Rajkot6SC5Rajasthan4Calcutta4Orissa2Varanasi2Dehradun2Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Patna1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income26Section 15320Section 153A17Section 234E14Condonation of Delay14Section 25013Section 271(1)(c)13Section 13213Penalty

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

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 249(2)12
Section 14412
Limitation/Time-bar7

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

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)

ii), the assessee's claim that he came to know about the assessment orders only on 14.03.2018, when the order u/s 230 was served on him is absolutely false. It is submitted that in respect of penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB, the assessee's erstwhile authorized representative had replied to this office by email requesting for adjournment

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

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 71/COCH/2017[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 1995-96

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 and admit and adjudicate the additional Grounds of Appeal

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 and admit and adjudicate the additional Grounds of Appeal

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 and admit and adjudicate the additional Grounds of Appeal

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 and admit and adjudicate the additional Grounds of Appeal