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:

condoning the delay of filing appeal and failed to adopt the settled principle of liberal interpretation applicable to institutions serving a non- profit motive. It is a well-established principle of law that the expression "sufficient cause" must be interpreted liberally, particularly in matters involving charitable organizations whose objective is to serve the public good and not to earn profits

S.B. BHATTACHARJEE MEMORIAL TRUST FOR CHILDREN EDUCATION ,DIGBOI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 11 of the Act by the assessee as per law as the requisite audit report is available on the portal and the delay, if any, in filing the same is condoned

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

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 in filing an appeal against order u/s 143(3)/263 after 522 days. The Learned CIT(A) did not consider the facts that during the intervening period of 522 days between the assessment order u/s 143(3)/263 dated 15/11/2016 and filing of appeal 2 Meghalaya Co-op Apex Bank Ltd., AY 2011-12 u/s 246A

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

MUKAND POLY PRODUCTS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

condonation of delay in filing the return pending before the AY 2015-16 Mukand Poly Products Page 3 Honourable Central Board of Direct Taxes ["CBDT" for short hereafter]. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and the learned CIT(A) may be directed to dispose of the appeal on merit after the Hon'ble CBDT disposes

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

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.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 24.12.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NER, Guwahati [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 During the assessment proceedings, the assessee allegedly did not provide

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILAKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILAKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,CACHAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,CACHAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILAKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,CACHAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

PABITRA BORO,TANGLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-MANGALDAI, MANGALDAI

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathy Chaudhury, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

11 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The delay has been attributed to adverse medical conditions being faced by the assessee. Keeping in view the period of delay, we condone the same and admit the appeal

NEW TECH STEEL & ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,ASSAM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. As Per The Provisions Of Section 253(3), The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before 11Th March, 2025. However, The Appeal Could Only Be Filed On 4Rd June, 2025, Resulting In A Delay Of 85 Days. The Reasons For The Delay Are Detailed Below: 1. That Due To Serious Health Condition, The Appellant Was Unable To Continue The Required Legal Proceedings As He Was A Prolonged Sufferer Of Acute Pancreatitis & Chronic Liver Disease (Cld), Both Of Which Significantly Compromised His

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 10.01.2025, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2.1 In this case, the additions were made by the Ld. AO on account of violation