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.

45 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai328 Delhi222 Chennai216 Indore186 Ahmedabad182 Kolkata169 Karnataka139 Jaipur137 Surat122 Bangalore108 Lucknow107 Chandigarh102 Pune69 Raipur47 Cochin45 Panaji43 Hyderabad43 Nagpur40 Cuttack40 Rajkot37 Allahabad35 Patna28 Jabalpur22 Jodhpur22 Varanasi20 Visakhapatnam17 Guwahati14 Amritsar12 Ranchi9 Agra8 SC4 Telangana2 Calcutta1 Andhra Pradesh1 Rajasthan1 Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 26345 Section 143(3)25 Section 123 Section 220(2)23 Section 246A23 Section 20123 Section 201(1)23 TDS23 Section 13122

M/S. PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Section 253(3) of I.T. Act, leading us unhesitatingly to reject assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

Limitation/Time-bar6

Condonation of Delay6

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

ITA 378/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 375/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 498/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 379/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 497/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 496/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 499/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 374/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 376/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 377/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee is not a precondition for enquiry u/s 142A failing to appreciate that the ratio in the said case was distinguished by High Court of Gujarat in Anand Bhanwarilal Adhukia vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 wherein the Court held as follows

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 108/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

section 249(3) of the Act and the same reads as under: "The Commissioner(Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 4.3. Before going into issue of condonation of delay, it would be relevant to place on record

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

section 249(3) of the Act and the same reads as under: "The Commissioner(Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 4.3. Before going into issue of condonation of delay, it would be relevant to place on record

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 109/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

section 249(3) of the Act and the same reads as under: "The Commissioner(Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 4.3. Before going into issue of condonation of delay, it would be relevant to place on record

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)

253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on the part

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)

253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on the part

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and both

ITA 61/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Cochin19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

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

253 ITR 798, the Supreme Court held that in exercising discretion u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. M/S.PESCAINDE, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the

ITA 227/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 253Section 263

253. It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeals was for bona fide reasons since the officer and staff were very busy in conducting surveys and also with time barring and year ending works and there is no willful negligence or lapses on the part of the Revenue in not filing the appeals before the Tribunal in time

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

ITA 514/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 253(2)

253(2) from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram on 26/08/2019. Thus, there was delay of 49 day. Accordingly, it was prayed that it is only just and reasonable that the delay was condoned, and the appeal was heard on merits. 2.2 We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the Department. As seen from the records, both