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

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 the reasons attributable to late filing the appeal are beyond the control of the assessee, therefore in the interest of justice and fair play the appeal

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

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

4), Kolkata in ITA No.940/Kol/2024, order dated 09/08/2024, the delay of 24 days in filing the audit report was condoned. It was submitted that the filing of the audit report was directory and not mandatory in nature and the delay occurred due to a technical default. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the appellate authority and requested that

SANDEEP JALAN,GUWAHATI vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Dated 08.12.2023, Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Period Of Delay: There Is A Delay Of 494 Days In Filing The Said Appeal

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 08.12.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that

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

139(1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB

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

139(1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB

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

139(1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB

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

139(1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB

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

139(1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. THE ASSAM COOERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before 31/05/2025. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Guwahati, On 18/06/2025, Resulting A Delay Of 18 Days Due To The Following Reasons. Exceptional Workload Due To Time-Barring Assessments & Initial Budget Collection Monitoring (March 2025): The Period Immediately Preceding The Appeal

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 19.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 In this case

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order

UTTAM KUMAR CHETIA,NATUN NIRMALI GAON vs. ITO WARD-1(3), DIBRUGARH

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2017-18. Page 1 of 4 ITA NO. 240 / GTY / 2024 Uttam Kumar Chetia -Vs- The ITO, Ward-1 (3), Dibrugarh AY: 2017-18 2. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under:- (i) On the facts

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

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:

139 of the Act. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee with the necessary approval from the competent authority and procedure were followed still the assessee did not file his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and various other opportunities granted to the assessee. Finally

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:

139 of the Act. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee with the necessary approval from the competent authority and procedure were followed still the assessee did not file his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and various other opportunities granted to the assessee. Finally

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:

139 of the Act. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee with the necessary approval from the competent authority and procedure were followed still the assessee did not file his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and various other opportunities granted to the assessee. Finally