M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not negligent in pursuing its legal remedies and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 607 days. The assessee explained the delay as arising from not being properly informed about the assessment order and subsequently receiving advice from their counsel to file the appeal.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal also considered the principles for condonation of delay as laid down by the Supreme Court.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
- Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others268 citing118 ITR 507 · 1979 · SC
- Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank & Others30 citing9 SCC 733 · 2009
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI JASON P BOAZ
Per Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Bangalore, dated 25/07/2014 for assessment year 2004-05, in not condoning the delay of 607 days in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and not disposing of the appeal on merits. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Ltd.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company which is engaged in the business of canalizing liquor/beer/RS, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 01/11/2004 declaring a total income of Rs.28,46,907/-. The income was assessed at Rs.3,79,01,907/- vide assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax
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 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026