RAJULHOUBIENUO ANGAMI,NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that while a notice under Section 143(2) might not be strictly necessary in all reassessment cases, the assessee must have had adequate opportunity to present their case. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the legal grounds raised, the matter was remanded.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to an accountant's oversight, leading to a delay in filing the current appeal. The original assessment involved an addition under Section 69A, and the assessee claims exemption under Section 10(26) as a Naga Tribe member.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order is vitiated due to non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(26),Section 69A,Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 148,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon623 citing321 ITR 362 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax91 citing341 ITR 247 · 2012 · HC
- 202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd.16 citing301 ITR 301 · 2008 · HC
- PCIT v. Broadway Shoe Co.15 citing99 Taxmann.com 83 · 2018
- Alpine Electronics Asia PTE Ltd. v. DGIT11 citing18 Taxmann.com 246 · 2012 · HC
- Padinjarekara Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CIT4 citing85 Taxmann.com 129 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case, there is a delay of 166 days, which has been requested to be condoned as under:
“1. The Appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal assailing the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. CIT(A)"]. That the due date for filing the appeal was 24th August, 2024. However, there has been an unintentional delay of 166 days (upto 13th February, 2025), in filing the present appeal, for which
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.
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 10(26)
- Tempa Tsering, New Market Tawang vs Income Tax Officer Ward North Lakhimpur…ITA 321/GTY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tezpur vs Phurpa Tsering, Arunachal PradeshITA 281/GTY/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Aphidalin Syiemlieh, Shillong Meghalaya vs ITO W-1 Shillong Range 15, ShillongITA 359/GTY/2026[2024-25]Status: Heard11 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- Mame Borang, Roing vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), DibrugarhITA 294/GTY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
- Mame Borang, Roing vs ITO, DibrugarhITA 289/GTY/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026