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.

60 results for “condonation of delay”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai488Kolkata462Mumbai420Delhi313Ahmedabad259Bangalore188Hyderabad182Pune152Surat133Jaipur128Indore67Rajkot61Cochin60Chandigarh57Calcutta49Visakhapatnam48Lucknow47Amritsar45Raipur41Panaji40Nagpur40Patna35Agra20Cuttack19Allahabad16Jabalpur10Guwahati9Jodhpur7Dehradun5Varanasi5Ranchi3SC1Telangana1Orissa1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Addition to Income46Cash Deposit40Section 143(3)36Section 6833Section 80P32Section 69A23Demonetization23Section 14821Reassessment

M/S.C&R HOTELS PVT. LTD,FORT KOCHI vs. THE DCIT,CORP CIR(1)(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 450/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K V Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 32(2)Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 is not correct. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the arguments of the assessee and granted relief in respect of the carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation by relying on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment. Insofar as the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the order

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

20
Condonation of Delay19
Section 118
Comparables/TP18
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

cash credit/ unexplained investment and as such he ought not to have invoked section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 6. For the above and other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the learned ITAT may be Page 3 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 pleased to cancel the order under section 263 passed

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

cash credit/ unexplained investment and as such he ought not to have invoked section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 6. For the above and other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the learned ITAT may be Page 3 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 pleased to cancel the order under section 263 passed

RAFEEK,KERALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 861/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S. & Sa.No.58/Coch/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.861/Coch/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rafeek Vs Ito, Ward-3 Kochukaleeckal A.N.Puram Krishnapuram Alappuzha Kappilmekku Kerala-688 011 Alappuzha-690 533 Pan – Akjpr2342F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Suresh Varma, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 .03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. The Assessee Also Filed A Stay Application Seeking To Stay The Recovery Of Outstanding Tax Arrears.

For Appellant: Sri Suresh Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69

unexplained investment within the purview of sec. 69 and it is taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961. Addition: Rs.23,48,500/- 3. Further to the above, the assessee had credited a sum of Rs.4,65,306 to the capital during the year under consideration. The credits were examined and found that the assessee had made cash deposits

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

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

SUPRIYA ENTERPRISES,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 301/COCH/2020[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Supriya Enterprises Principal Commissioner Of 16,263, Calicut Road Income Tax Vs. Manjeri, Malappuram 676121 Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 which was found credited in the books of 3 M/s. Supriya Enterprises accounts of the assessee and claimed as received from debtors which the assessee could not prove. During the revision proceedings also the assessee could not substantiate the sources for cash at Rs 29,32,287/-. with any cogent evidence. Since the assessee failed

PUTHOOR ANTONY JOSE,THRISSUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 822/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Puthoor Antony Jose .......... Appellant Puthoor House, Po Valappad, Thrissur-680567, Kerala. Pan: Abspj1167G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-2(1), Thrissur, Kerala. Appellant By: Ms. Telma Raju, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Ms. Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 145A

unexplained cash credits despite the fact that the appellant had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the Gold Loan availed and further, making the addition U/s. 145A of the Act despite the fact that the stock was adjusted by including the element of VAT. The appellant had filed detailed submissions before the CIT(A) which are placed before

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-, KOTTAYAM vs. PUTHENKUDY PAULOSE BABU, KOTTAYAM

The appeal is allowed

ITA 775/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground seeking to revive sec.69 addition of Rs.68 lakhs made in the course of assessment herein dated 31.12.2019; learned DR invited our attention to the learned CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion to this effect reading as under ; “7. During

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 608/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. ITA No. 604/Coch/2024 - Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of distribution of LPG cylinders and allied products. For A.Y. 2017–18, assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 41,87,750. The case of the assessee was selected

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 604/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. ITA No. 604/Coch/2024 - Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of distribution of LPG cylinders and allied products. For A.Y. 2017–18, assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 41,87,750. The case of the assessee was selected

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-1(10, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 614/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

unexplained cash credit. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the impugned assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 254 days. The Ld. CIT(A), without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The assessee, being further aggrieved, has filed the present appeal before

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD-1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 615/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

unexplained cash credit. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the impugned assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 254 days. The Ld. CIT(A), without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The assessee, being further aggrieved, has filed the present appeal before

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 273/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee had sold land for Rs. 44,39,000 and claimed cost of improvement of Rs. 35,77,949 while computing capital gains. Since no supporting evidence for the cost of improvement was produced, the AO rejected the claim and computed the long-term capital gain

SITARAM THRIKKUR SUBBARAMAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 398/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman .......... Appellant Xxxi 289 Lakshmi Nivas, Pushpagiri Thrissur - 680002 [Pan: Aiops8626E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appellant’s share in the property sold is only 2% as per the family settlement deed dated 25.11.2006, placed at page Nos. 38 to 58 of the paper book. Therefore, the entire sale consideration cannot be brought

BAIJU LEKSHMANAN,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2017-18 Baiju Lekshmanan Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, V. Alappuzha Marackasseril, Atiramthengu, Alumpeedika Po, Prayar South, Kollam – 690547. Pan : Ambpl8921A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 17 Days. An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay For 17 Days Has Been Filed By The Assessee Explaining Reasons For Such Delay. We, After Considering The Application For Condoning The Delay, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Shaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 Baiju Lekshmanan 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act based on information that the assessee had made cash deposits totaling Rs.10587899/- in his bank account maintained with South Indian Bank during the relevant financial

ABOOBAKER,KASARGAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, (TPS), KASARGAD

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

ITA 709/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 144Section 148Section 68

condone the said delay in filing this appeal and proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Page 2 of 4 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is doing the business of wholesale and retail trading of sheep and goats and he earned income through selling the sheep and goats in the local market

SHEEJAMOL SAINABABEEVI ALIYARUKUNJU,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infrutuous

ITA 758/COCH/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Jaikrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Snr.DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

condoning the said delay and proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted a paper book enclosing the copies of the five sale deeds and also enclosed the demand drafts taken in the name of the seller Francis D Fernandes and submitted that the loans were given by the 9 persons that

ULAHANNAN MUDAKKALAYIL LEELA,KEEZHILLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, ALUVA, ALUVA

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

ITA 36/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

cash deposit as unexplained credits u/s 69A of the Act and framed the assessment. The assessment order is dated 26.3.2022. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 5.2.2024, meaning thereby there was a delay of 651 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Explaining the cause of delay, the assessee explained that

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)

credit to assessee’s sales in LPG dealership business but also they have not taken into account the latter’s sales qua the estimation of profit @2.4%. The assessee has also failed to reconcile all of his business sales vis-a-vis the impughed cash deposits to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. Our attention is further invited