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.

37 results for “condonation of delay”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai522Kolkata456Delhi383Mumbai281Jaipur209Ahmedabad198Hyderabad151Bangalore136Surat103Visakhapatnam89Chandigarh78Pune77Amritsar67Rajkot61Karnataka51Nagpur47Cuttack47Indore46Calcutta45Lucknow38Cochin37Raipur29Patna29Guwahati23Agra15Ranchi12Allahabad10Varanasi9Telangana8Jodhpur8Dehradun7Panaji5SC4Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 12A28Addition to Income26Section 153A24Section 1121Condonation of Delay18Section 139(1)16Section 26314Section 15414Section 148

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)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 115B13
Penalty11
Exemption10

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)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

DR. K.E. MOORTHY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 637/COCH/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2019AY 2000-01

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

undisclosed income of Rs.8,58,000/- considered by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 is to be treated as ‘income from profession’ instead of ‘salary income’ and out of this, the assessee is entitled to 25% towards expenditure incurred for earning this income as in other assessment years. Thus, the appeals of the assessee

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)

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 of Rs. 4,29,10,720/- by disclosing additional income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed

SREEPRIYA MOHANAN SAJI,PARAVUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KOLLAM

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

ITA 631/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CA
Section 69A

condoning the delay and take up the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 27/03/2018. The return was processed and it was selected for limited scrutiny to enquire about the deposit of cash in her bank account on 11/11/2016. The assessee

K.L ABDUL SATHAR,SOUTH BAZAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR

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

ITA 614/COCH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2009-10 K.L. Abdul Sathar South Bazar Kannur 670002 Vs. Dcit Kannur Pan No : Aaffk4769B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 29.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060194335(1) For The Ay 2009-10 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is dealing in purchase and sale of timber, tiles and other allied goods. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee firm filed its return of income on 24.3.2010 declaring total income of Rs.11,79,760/-. The return

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 234/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69C

condone the delay. Appeal dismissed on account of delay and latches. ITA No. 234/Coch/2023 – AY : 2009-10 8. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate, execution of civil contracts and running of bars and restaurants. Search and seizure operations were conducted

K.K BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, CALICUT. , CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 759/COCH/2023[AY 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69C

condone the delay. Appeal dismissed on account of delay and latches. ITA No. 234/Coch/2023 – AY : 2009-10 8. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate, execution of civil contracts and running of bars and restaurants. Search and seizure operations were conducted

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 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 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 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 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

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 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

KUNJUMOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 266/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 144BSection 148BSection 194I

income of Rs. 73,15,000/- While doing so the AO made addition on account of time deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained investment and also made an addition of Rs. 63,15,000/- on account of undisclosed capital gains on sale of immovable property. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was file before the CIT(A) with

SHRI. SANTHAKUMAR DAMODARAN NADAR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 950/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

condoning the delay, which aspect shall be visited later. 3. As regards the merits of the case, the assessee’s return of income for the relevant year, filed on 12.3.2018 at an income of Rs.5.18 lakh (sourced from the business of poultry products and feeds), was selected for being subject to the verification procedure under

SITARAM TRADING COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

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

ITA 310/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sitaram Trading Company .......... Appellant No. 30/212 Kunnathupeedika Kuttur, Thrissur 680013 [Pan: Aaifs9479F] Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishnan, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

undisclosed income of the appellant. The AO also brought to tax an amount of Rs. 1,48,627/- being the difference in the amount of interest of income tax refund for AY 2014-15. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is that the gross receipts as per Form 26AS was Rs. 5,56,84,919/- whereas

SRI.THOMAS EAPEN,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 115BSection 68

condone the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 on 16/03/2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,37,160/-. The assessment u/s. I.T.A. No. 451/Coch/2019 143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed o 21/12/2017

SRI.PHINU THOMAS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-3,, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 316/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 131Section 143(2)

condone the delay of 70 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The first ground, ground Nos. is with regard to addition of Rs.10,05,000/- as unexplained income which was claimed to be received from the sale of gold. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and partner of M/s. Theravathu Builders