GURU TEG BAHADUR ACADEMIC SOCIETY,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), EXEMPTION, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 11 (2) of the Act. 5. For that the Id. CIT was not justified both in law and on facts in arbitrarily branding the order of assessment passed by the Id. AO as erroneous which was passed after due application of mind by the Id. AO. 6. For that the impugned order having been passed in gross violation

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

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice

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 is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. I.T.A. No. 26/GTY/2025 Rajulhoubienuo Angami 2. The present appeal emanates from the order under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 24.06.2024. 2.1 In this

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)

5. Moreover, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay of 522 days arose in filing the appeal because during the intervening period the assessee had taken steps by initiating the provisions of section 154 of the Act and thereafter the assessee had filed separate appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on the same ground and as such delay was happened

THEMIS T DIENGDOH,SHILLONG vs. ITO WARD-2, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

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

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.03.2024, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has largely passed

SHRI PARINDRA REANG,AMARPUR vs. ITO, WARD- UDAIPUR, AGARTALA

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

Bench: the Ld CIT (A) who disposed off the case on 23-02-2024 as per the Portal as response was filled against the Notice issued by his honour and disposed off the Appeal, partially allowing the Appeal filed.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. I.T.A. No. 177/GTY/2024 Shri Parindra Reang 2. The present appeal arises from the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.02.2024, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 2.1 In this case

MANTO TINGKHAHAM,NAMSANGMUKH vs. OFFICE OF THE ITO, DIGBOI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vide DIN & Order No :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074803037(1).

5. That the delay has been due to communication issue in the extreme remote rural and hilly area of Namsangmukh, Deomali, District- Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh where the deponent resides. 6. That the reason for delay is totally bona-fide and unintentional and the deponent does not stand any chance to benefit from the delay. 7. That the deponent most humbly

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

5) of the Act, the Tribunal has the power to admit the appeal even after expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (3) & (4) of Section 253 of the Act if the Tribunal is satisfied that there were sufficient causes and reasons for not presenting the appeals within the stipulated period. The Ld. A.R submitted that since

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.

10,17,148/-. The return was processed on 30.07.2019 making the addition of Rs. 32,67,767/- as per the tax audit report uploaded along with the return of income. In Form No. 3CD clause 26(B)(b), (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of Section 43B of the Act on 29.02.2020. The assessee filed its disagreement with

KRIPA RANJAN DEBBARMA,AGARTALA vs. ITO, WARD - 1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Your Honour Against The Rejection Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed On 25.11.2024 & In The Matter Have E-Filed The Appeal In Form 35 Online With Grounds Of Appeal On 16.05.2025 & The Appeal Fee Rs. 10,000 Is Also Paid. However The Above Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 105 Days As The Appeal Was Supposed To Be Filed By 60 Days From The Date Of Order Ie. 25.11.2024 But Filed On 16.05.2025. Sir, I Am Not Able To Attend To My Regular Duties & Tasks. I Am 72 Years & Am Suffering From Depression & Various Age Related Issues. I Am Under Medical

10,000 is also paid. However the above appeal has been filed with a delay of 105 days as the appeal was supposed to be filed by 60 days from the date of order ie. 25.11.2024 but filed on 16.05.2025. Sir, I am not able to attend to my regular duties and tasks. I am 72 years and am suffering

KENNETH BLAH,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

5. Findings: The appeal is delayed. In Forms 35, the appellant has submitted as follows: "Not knowing that an appeal had to be filed online." The delay is condoned only in the interest of natural justice and the matter is taken up for adjudication as hereunder. 4 Kenneth Blah The Grounds of appeal, the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs. IMKUMMONGLA PONGEN, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,66,07,000/- u/s 69A of the Income

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

SRI PICKLU PAUL,KARIMGANJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shillong is not justified in dismissing the grounds taken by the Appellant before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals