T K BEER BONDED WAREHOUSE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH,ARUNACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - NORTH LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

ITA 275/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 June 2026AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delays, noting the assessee's claim of unawareness of assessment orders. The tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(Appeals) after significant delays, citing unfamiliarity with e-filing and assessment proceedings. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals without condoning the delay due to lack of substantiation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(Appeals) was sufficiently explained, and if the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3)

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 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 274, 275, 276 & 277/GTY/2026 are directed at the instance of Assessee against

ITA Nos. 274 & 275/GTY/2026 (A.Y. 2021-22) ITA Nos. 276 & 277/GTY/2026 (A.Y. 2022-23 T.K. Beer Bonded Warehouse the orders of ld. Commissioner of

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) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →