ITAT Guwahati Judgments — September 2025

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly identify the specific documents leading to the disclosure of undisclosed income. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to ascertain the existence of undisclosed income and decide on the leviability of the penalty.

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly identify the specific documents leading to the disclosure of undisclosed income. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to ascertain the existence of undisclosed income and decide on the leviability of the penalty.

RALOM BORANG,BUSIHI YADA MOTORS, A SECTOR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEA TAX , AAYKAR BHAWAN GS ROAD

ITA 7/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal observed the assessee's non-representation at both the assessment and first appellate stages. In the interest of justice and fair play, and considering the assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(26), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and allowing the AO to represent the case as per Rule 46A if required.

TAREM DARANG,PASIGHAT, ARUNCHAL PRADESH vs ITO WARD ITANAGAR, ITANAGAR

ITA 3/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting the lack of proper compliance and opportunity before the lower authorities, set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

EDUCATION INDIA, SHILLONG,SHILLONG vs ITO, WARD-1, SHILLONG

ITA 15/GTY/2025[Not Applicable]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT (Exemption) had erred by rejecting the registration application without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing to the assessee.

TAI TADO,ITANAGAR vs ITO, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

ITA 158/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

SHIVAM PIPE INDUSTRIES,GUWAHATI vs ITO WARD 2(2), GUWAHATI

ITA 164/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's genuine difficulty in claiming the deduction earlier, as eligibility arose post-rectification. Citing judicial precedents that allow the benefit if the audit report is made available before assessment completion, the Tribunal found 'exceptional elements' in the case. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Revenue to allow the deduction claim.

JOHN CHHETRI,AIZAWL vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2), GUWAHATI

ITA 139/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as a pure legal issue. It held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without jurisdiction because the provisions of Section 151A became effective only from 29.03.2022, rendering actions taken by NFAC prior to this date invalid. Citing a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.