MOHAMMED HELALUDDIN AHMED,DANKIGAON, GOPAL NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD, NAGAON

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

condone the delay of 47 days. In the same breath, we restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT (A) to decide the appeal on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In respect of ITA No. 330/GTY/25 which is against the penalty

MOHAMMED HELALUDDIN AHMED,HOJAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD, NAGAON

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

condone the delay of 47 days. In the same breath, we restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT (A) to decide the appeal on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In respect of ITA No. 330/GTY/25 which is against the penalty

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty of ₹ 7,18,933/- as imposed by the ABCI Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs ACIT/DCIT Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of particulars of income by not condoning the delay

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty of ₹ 7,18,933/- as imposed by the ABCI Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs ACIT/DCIT Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of particulars of income by not condoning the delay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed and questions Nos

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. In this case, the Ld.AO made several additions out of which the addition of Rs. 21,56,00,000/- on account of alleged penal interest survives for adjudication before the ITAT. The Revenue is aggrieved that the Ld. CIT(A) has afforded relief to the assessee on this

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condone the delay by admitting the appeals for adjudication. We shall first take up IT(SS)A 1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11. IT(SS)A 1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 03. First, we would take up ITA(SS)A No.1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised legal issue challenging the jurisdiction

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. SATISH JALAN, SHILLONG

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat. 3. There Are Currently More Than 300 Time Barred Assessment & 200 Penalty Cases Are Pending In This Office. Due To Shortage Of Manpower It Was Delayed In The Filing Of Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat.

condoning of the said delay as under: “With due respect, the undersigned begs to state that, due to the following reasons the filling of appeal in Ld. ITAT got delayed. The reasons are as follows 1. Recently one inspector of income tax posted in the Central Circle-1, Guwahati has been transferred to Delhi on deputation. However no substitute

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) & (c) of the Act with the Appropriate Authority for filing of return of income, which was not done. (iii) That the Hon’ble Jodhpur ITAT in the case of Suncity Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2009] 124 TTJ 124 had held that the assessments or reassessments made pursuance to notice u/s 153A

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) & (c) of the Act with the Appropriate Authority for filing of return of income, which was not done. (iii) That the Hon’ble Jodhpur ITAT in the case of Suncity Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2009] 124 TTJ 124 had held that the assessments or reassessments made pursuance to notice u/s 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) & (c) of the Act with the Appropriate Authority for filing of return of income, which was not done. (iii) That the Hon’ble Jodhpur ITAT in the case of Suncity Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2009] 124 TTJ 124 had held that the assessments or reassessments made pursuance to notice u/s 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) & (c) of the Act with the Appropriate Authority for filing of return of income, which was not done. (iii) That the Hon’ble Jodhpur ITAT in the case of Suncity Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2009] 124 TTJ 124 had held that the assessments or reassessments made pursuance to notice u/s 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) & (c) of the Act with the Appropriate Authority for filing of return of income, which was not done. (iii) That the Hon’ble Jodhpur ITAT in the case of Suncity Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2009] 124 TTJ 124 had held that the assessments or reassessments made pursuance to notice u/s 153A

BABLU GUPTA,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-1(1), GUWAHATI

In the result, the quantum appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the penalty appeals are allowed with the above observations

penalties were levied 271(1)(c) of the Act vide orders dated 22.09.2022 & 12.09.2022.\n2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 64 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection

BABLU GUPTA,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W -1(1), GUWAHATI

In the result, the quantum appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the penalty appeals are allowed with the above observations

penalties were levied 271(1)(c) of the Act vide orders dated 22.09.2022 & 12.09.2022.\n\n2.\nAt the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 64 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise

PAWAN COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI ASSAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT for short hereafter] expired on 17.05.2024. There is therefore a delay of about 211 (two hundred eleven) days or more till date in submitting the appeal before the said learned Tribunal.

condonation of delay, as supported by a duly sworn affidavit. 4. That the aforesaid delay in submitting the appeal u/s 253 has arisen because of sufficient cause, and the sequence of the events leading to the delay has been as described below: (a) The memorandum of appeal was required to be submitted by 17.05.2074, 1.c. within 60(sixty) days

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

delay for filing appeal were not accepted and similar view was also taken by the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the penalty appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. 6. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

delay for filing appeal were not accepted and similar view was also taken by the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the penalty appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. 6. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR , SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

delay for filing appeal were not accepted and similar view was also taken by the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the penalty appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. 6. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned