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.

627 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 3clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai4,157 Mumbai4,050 Delhi3,380 Pune2,190 Kolkata2,167 Bangalore1,691 Ahmedabad1,586 Hyderabad1,422 Jaipur1,022 Patna736 Chandigarh660 Surat652 Cochin627 Nagpur526 Visakhapatnam521 Indore475 Lucknow438 Raipur414 Amritsar355 Cuttack343 Rajkot331 Karnataka322 Calcutta225 Panaji202 Agra175 Guwahati122 Dehradun110 Jodhpur105 Jabalpur89 Allahabad86 Ranchi66 SC63 Telangana62 Varanasi38 Kerala24 Andhra Pradesh21 Orissa12 Rajasthan11 Punjab & Haryana9 Himachal Pradesh5 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Gauhati1 R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 234E65 Section 80P55 Section 143(3)36 Deduction36 TDS31 Section 200A29 Section 26325 Addition to Income25 Condonation of Delay

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 627 · Page 1 of 32

...

25

Limitation/Time-bar24

Section 80P(2)(d)19

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019 3

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

3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1)[***], a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under sub-section (1). ***** ***** [(9) Where

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 762/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

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

3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case, this Court held that unless the Department has reasonable and acceptable reason

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 763/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

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

3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case, this Court held that unless the Department has reasonable and acceptable reason

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 764/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

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

3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case, this Court held that unless the Department has reasonable and acceptable reason

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 761/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

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

3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case, this Court held that unless the Department has reasonable and acceptable reason

M/S.KOSAMATTOM FINANCE P. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 600/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri. T.M.SreedharanFor Respondent: Sri.Santham Bose

Section 143(3)Section 263

section 255(5) of the Act. He stated that the law is similarly concerned “sufficient cause” in matters relating to belated appeal. According to him, the length of the delay is not relevant and submitted that there is a sufficient cause for delay and this delay is of no fetter in condoning the delay and admitting the same in view