the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed several additional documents as new evidence for which a remand report was called from the Ld. AO. It is noteworthy that the remand report has been extensively reproduced between pages 84 to 88 of the impugned order. It is also noted with concern that instead of commenting on the new evidence the Ld. AO has merely submitted to make out a case for non-admission of the same before the Ld. CIT(A) and has not commented on the merit of the documents before him.

POWER MAKER (UNIT-II),GUWAHATI vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 25/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed30/4/2025AY 2018-19

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI MANMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member)

MAHABHAIRAV AUTO LLP,TEZPUR vs DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 213/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed23/4/2025AY 2018-19

the Ld. CIT(A) where the assessee could not succeed mainly on the ground that there was a delay of 144 days in filing of the first appeal, which was not condoned. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a detailed finding as to why he has chosen not to condone the said delay. Thus, evidently the appeal has not been adjudicated on merit.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IMPHAL, IMPHAL vs SHRI LAISHRAM MANI SINGH, IMPHAL

ITA 31/GTY/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed23/4/2025AY 2014-15

the Ld. AO. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) had access to more records than whatsoever material is available before the ITAT. From the impugned order it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO had initiated penalty proceedings both under Section 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Act. In fact, the initiation of penalty under both of the sections has persuaded the Ld. CIT(A) to grant relief, apart from some other factual issues.1.2 We find that in this case, before the ITAT, there have

RANEE NARAH,GUWAHATI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

ITA 84/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed23/4/2025AY 2016-17

SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

NAREN BASAK,GUWAHATI vs ITO WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI

ITA 20/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed17/4/2025AY 2017-18

SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

FRIDAY HINGE,MEGHALAYA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 264/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed4/4/2025AY 2021-22

SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

FRIDAY HINGE,MEGHALAYA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 263/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed4/4/2025AY 2020-21

SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

PANWANG WANGHAM,RANGLUA, KANUBARI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, DIGBOI

ITA 183/GTY/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed4/4/2025AY 2015-16

the Ld. AO, the order was passed in an exparte manner.

RADHABARI TEA CO. (P) LTD,BADULIPAR vs ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH

ITA 159/GTY/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed4/4/2025AY 2022-23

the due date of filing of return of income and also the issue of timely deposit of an amount of Rs.57,24,972/- on account of Labour & Staff Bonus. In this case, while processing u/s 143(1), the Ld. AO, CPC disallowed these items as in- admissible considering the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The facts in brief may be mentioned. It is seen that the appellant has made a provision for Current Liabilities towards Staff and Labour Bonus for a sum of Rs.14,41,400.00 in the books of accoun

LATE ASAD UDDIN, (THROUGH LEGAL SUCCESSOR SMT. RAZIA BEGUM).,SILCHAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- SILCHAR, SILCHAR

ITA 137/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed4/4/2025AY 2017-18

SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)