RUNJUN GOGOI,LAKHIMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JORHAT, JORHAT

ITA 319/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 July 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals before both the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal, citing the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed for being time-barred, as was the subsequent appeal before the ITAT. The assessee attributed the delay to the negligence of their tax consultant and unawareness of the CIT(Appeals) order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal was due to 'sufficient cause' and if the ITAT should condone such delays.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-GUWAHATI ‘e-COURT’, DB, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

1 Runjun Gogoi National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16.09.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, we h

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 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →