CAVENDISH BIO PHARMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, CORP WARD 1(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2086/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 September 2026AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the FAA had not considered the reasons for the delay provided by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the FAA for fresh consideration and a reasoned order on the condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in limine due to a significant delay in filing. The assessee claimed they were unaware of the demand until much later and had provided reasons for the delay with an affidavit.

What were the issues?

Whether the FAA erred in dismissing the appeals in limine without adjudicating on the reasons for delay and the supporting affidavit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 250,Section 245

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 08.09.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against three orders of the Addl/JCIT(A), Thane, dated 13.02.2026 / 09.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2009-10 to 2011-12. ITA Nos.1880, 1970 & 2086/CHNY/2026 Cavendish Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd. 2

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →