SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

delay and had requested for condoning the same at first appeal stage. For the sake of convenience, the reasons

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

delay and had requested for condoning the same at first appeal stage. For the sake of convenience, the reasons

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

delay and had requested for condoning the same at first appeal stage. For the sake of convenience, the reasons

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

delay and had requested for condoning the same at first appeal stage. For the sake of convenience, the reasons

AMAR CHAND GANGWAL,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Your Honour Under Section 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Challenging The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Said Act By The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Noida For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. I Respectfully Submit That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Prescribed Time Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Difficulties Beyond My Control. The Appeal Was Due To Be Filed On Or Before 28.02.2025. There Is Delay Of 95 Days Only In Filing Of The Appeal. 3. I Am Aged About 81 Years & I Am Not Conversant With E-Mail, Digital / Internet

condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal. If the delay is not condoned, I shall

ARECA GLOBAL ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The

delay of 179 days, admittedly without any petition seeking condonation of the said delay. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded

SUMAN AHMED,GAURIPUR vs. ITO, WARD- DHUBRI, DHUBRI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

delay of 98 days. The ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Suman

MEGHALAYA CO-OP. APEX BANK LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Meghalaya Co-Op. Apex Assistant Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle - Shillong Vs. M. G. Road, Shillong- 793001 (Pan: Aaam8227G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay. The Appellant prays for considering the condonation of delay which was denied by the Learned

HAREN MAHANTA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

condoning a delay of 78 days. The assessee argued that the delay was for bona fide reasons

D P SCHOOL SOCIETY,NAGALAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JURISDICTION WARD TWO(THREE)

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The First Appellate Authority. Before The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), The Assessee Gave The Reasons For Said Delay As Under:

delay. Mere assertion of “unavoidable circumstances” without adequate supporting documentation cannot be considered sufficient ground for condonation of delay

SHIWAJI PD. JAISWAL,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: "Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

delay which is as under: “Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 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

condone the delays in filing of appeals. In the interest of substantive justice, the delays in filing

SENTILEMBA,MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

delay of 144 days without condonation. The assessee claimed the delay was due to bona fide reasons

GNRC LTD,DISPUR vs. ITO W-2(1), GUWAHATI, GS ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

delay without condoning it, despite the delay being attributed to bona fide reasons. The assessee argued this

MARILYN DAS,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoning a delay of 146 days. The assessee argued that the delay was due to bona fide

RAJULHOUBIENUO ANGAMI,NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 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 Appellant, With Utmost Humility, Seeks The Indulgence Of This Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Said Delay On The Grounds Set Forth Herein. 2. It Is Submitted That The Mr. Shivendu Maharaj Is The Accountant Of The Appellant Who Looks After The Tax Portal & Email Updates. The Accountant Also Forwards The Needful To The Chartered Accountant, Mr. Ajit Jain, To Take Necessary Action In Response To Any Notice That Is Received.

delay of 166 days, which has been requested to be condoned as under: “1. The Appellant has preferred

JIA MONGRI SANGMA,NONGALBIRA vs. ITO, SHILLONG

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes and the penalty appeals are allowed with the\nabove observation

delay of 312 days, without condoning the delay.", "held": "The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay

SPECIAL JUDGE ASSAM GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-TDS2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months and there was lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay