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.

21 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 270A(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai65Chandigarh62Chennai54Pune42Ahmedabad38Jaipur37Delhi36Bangalore30Hyderabad25Cochin21Lucknow21Patna19Kolkata18Visakhapatnam17Surat13Raipur10Rajkot10Cuttack9Nagpur9Indore8Jabalpur5Agra3Panaji2Dehradun2Allahabad2Ranchi1SC1Guwahati1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Addition to Income21Section 118Section 143(3)18Cash Deposit18Demonetization18Reassessment18Comparables/TP18Section 270A5Section 68

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 10/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

4
Section 2503
Penalty3
Section 1442
ITA 6/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 9/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 7/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 8/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 17/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 5/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 4/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 11/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 12/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 13/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 14/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 15/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 16/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 18/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

9. Lastly comes the Revenue’s case in AY 2017-18 that we ought to confirm the impugned section 270A penalty as it pertains to unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetisation period. Learned DR’s case is that assessee’s cash deposits in fact represent his under reported income u/s. 270A of the Act. We find no merit

THE VAZHAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. 751,VAZHAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 429/COCH/2025[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Vazhakulam Service Co-Op. .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No.751, Vazhakulam P O, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Dist. [Pan: Aacat 2742 H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 250Section 270ASection 63Section 64Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

270A was served on 03/03/2025. The assessee has come to know when served the penalty order and immediately filed this appeal without any further delay. Since the averments made in the petition, not controverted by the Department, I am of the considered opinion, it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 672 days is hereby

VENUS INDUSTRIES,KODUNGALLUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 401/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 68

270A of the Act. The appellant was expecting notices physically and consequently service of notice electronically missed by the appellant which led to the delay in filing the appeal. After considering the reasons advanced by the appellant for belated filing of the appeal, we find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause due to which the assessee was prevented