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.

17 results for “condonation of delay”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai109Hyderabad100Kolkata80Bangalore78Delhi76Chennai66Visakhapatnam45Raipur44Jaipur43Chandigarh37Pune29Surat23Patna19Cochin17Rajkot17Indore12Nagpur9Ahmedabad8Lucknow6Kerala4Cuttack4Panaji4Jodhpur2SC2Jabalpur1Guwahati1Ranchi1Allahabad1Calcutta1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 12A28Section 1121Section 139(1)16Addition to Income14Section 26312Section 115B12Section 133A8Section 688Survey u/s 133A8

MAGGY SUNNY( PROP.SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS 916 KERALA SHOWROOM,TRIVANDRUM vs. THEITO, WD-3, KOTTAYAM

In the result, both the appeal and the Stay Petition filed by the assessee are

ITA 258/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

condone the delay of 1038 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No. 258/Coch/2019 & S.P. No.23/Coch/2019 5. Coming to the merit of the issue of addition of Rs.93,56,364/- on account of estimation of G.P., it is pertinent to mention herein that a similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal

M/S.HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ITO(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are dismissed

ITA 449/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 133A
Section 153A7
Charitable Trust7
Exemption7

133A of the Act. The pen drives are not subject to verification as per the mandatory prescription u/s 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act 1872 read with sec 93 and the 2nd schedule of the Information Technology Act 2000 before adopting this as an evidence against the assessee for the purpose of assessment.” 6.2. The Ld. AR filed affidavit

M/S.HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ITO(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are dismissed

ITA 448/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 133A

133A of the Act. The pen drives are not subject to verification as per the mandatory prescription u/s 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act 1872 read with sec 93 and the 2nd schedule of the Information Technology Act 2000 before adopting this as an evidence against the assessee for the purpose of assessment.” 6.2. The Ld. AR filed affidavit

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 302/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 2.4 Considering the above submissions, the appeal is not held to be time barred respectfully following the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). Accordingly the present appeal is admitted to be adjudicated on the issues raised by assessee there. Page 4 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 3. Following additional grounds filed

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 2.4 Considering the above submissions, the appeal is not held to be time barred respectfully following the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). Accordingly the present appeal is admitted to be adjudicated on the issues raised by assessee there. Page 4 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 3. Following additional grounds filed

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

Section 5

condone the delay of 217 days in filing the appeals for all the assessment years. 6. In the result, all the other appeals of the assessee are dismissed as unadmitted. 7. Now coming to the Revenue appeal in ITA No.60/Coch/2017. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) erred in suggesting that extrapolation of the findings

MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 787/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

For Appellant: Shri Surendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were carried out in the business premises of the appellant on 09.02.2016. During the course of survey proceedings, undisclosed sales were unearthed and additional income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- was found. Subsequent to the survey the appellant revised the return of income at a total income

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 924/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income on 28.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 1,41,86,602/-. 3. Against the said return of income, the assessment

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 925/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income on 28.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 1,41,86,602/-. 3. Against the said return of income, the assessment

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

Delay condoned. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 30.11.2014, declaring total income at Rs.1,75,34,220/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon by the assessee

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 258/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return