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

condone any delay in filing of Form 10B as per the aforesaid Circular No. 2 of 2020 dated 03/01/2020. Considering the facts of the case, I am not inclined to agree with the appellant’s submissions. Further, keeping in view the above mentioned legal provisions as per Section 12A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is clear

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

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

ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(4), SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. NORTH EAST SOCIETY OF SISTERS OF THE HOLY CROSS, MEGHALAYA

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

section. 2. For that the learned A.O., CPC was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1) when CBDT vide Circular No. 2/2020 has issued beneficial circular for condonation of delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIGBOI, DIGBOI vs. ARUNACHAL TEA COMPANY, MARGHERITA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

143(1) of the Act, dated 02.11.2022. 2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) NFAC has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 52,80,843/-u/s 80-IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made on account of failure to furnish form no. 10CCB

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 in filing the appeal should not be condoned and requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be uphold. 7. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and order of authorities below. We noted that the return was processed under Section 143(1

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

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 [as referred

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

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 [as referred

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

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 [as referred

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

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 [as referred

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

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 [as referred

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

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

KEERTI FLOUR MILLS,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern

condone the delay for both the years before the first appellate authority and thereafter set aside both the impugned orders. We remand these cases back to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee under the provision of section 143(1

KEERTI FLOUR MILLS,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3) GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern

condone the delay for both the years before the first appellate authority and thereafter set aside both the impugned orders. We remand these cases back to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee under the provision of section 143(1

SOTAI TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD.,SOTAI, JORHAT, ASSAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, JORHAT, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 22.08.2007, the same was passed in a mechanical and cryptic manner, without disclosing any computation, basis, or reasoning for the tax demand of Rs. 3,81,930/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Only), thereby rendering the said intimation arbitrary, devoid of due process, and in violation

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

1. In this case, the ITAT Registry has reported that there is a delay of 64 days in filing of the appeal. The delay has been requested to be condoned as under: “The appellant has preferred an appeal in Form 36 before the Hon'ble Bench against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed under Section 143