SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

section 144 of the Act passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 1.1 In all these 4 appeals, the common ground is that there was delay in filing of appeals ranging from 58 days to 758 days before the Ld. CIT(A) as under: (a) ITA No. 297/Gty/2025- delayed by 758 days (reasons given by the assessee for the said delay

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

section 144 of the Act passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 1.1 In all these 4 appeals, the common ground is that there was delay in filing of appeals ranging from 58 days to 758 days before the Ld. CIT(A) as under: (a) ITA No. 297/Gty/2025- delayed by 758 days (reasons given by the assessee for the said delay

SENTILEMBA,MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

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

144 days without condonation. The assessee claimed the delay was due to bona fide reasons and that the CIT(A)'s order violated principles of natural justice.", "held": "The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities like limitation. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the issues were restored

JIA MONGRI SANGMA,NONGALBIRA vs. ITO, SHILLONG

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes and the penalty appeals are allowed with the\nabove observation

sections": [ "271 AAC(i)", "270A", "144", "144B" ], "issues": "Whether the appeal dismissed in limine due to delay without condoning genuine

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

HARI NARAYAN BORKATAKY,TINSUKIA vs. ITO WARD - 1, TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 263 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Date Of The Order Passing The Appeal Order Is 14/05/2025. Being Aggrieved By The Order, The Appellant Wanted To Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Due To Be Filed On Or Before 31Th July 2025. However, Due To Unavoidable Circumstances, The Appeal Was Filed Only On 9Th October, 2025 With A Delay Of 70 Days.

delay of 70 days which has been requested to be condoned as under: “The appellant has filed an appeal in Form 36 before the Hon'ble Bench against the order passed under Section 250 r.w.s. 144

HARI NARAYAN BORKATAKY,TINSUKIA vs. ITO WARD - 1, TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 263 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Date Of The Order Passing The Appeal Order Is 14/05/2025. Being Aggrieved By The Order, The Appellant Wanted To Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Due To Be Filed On Or Before 31Th July 2025. However, Due To Unavoidable Circumstances, The Appeal Was Filed Only On 9Th October, 2025 With A Delay Of 70 Days.

delay of 70 days which has been requested to be condoned as under: “The appellant has filed an appeal in Form 36 before the Hon'ble Bench against the order passed under Section 250 r.w.s. 144

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

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,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

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

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

section 250 of the income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal I.T.A. No. 159/GTY/2025 Assam Power Distribution Company Limited Centre(NFAC), Delhi was communicated on 11/03/2025. Consequently, the due date for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was on or before. However, the appeal

DEBASHISH BISWAS (DECEASED),TEZPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati against the ex-parte Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi U/s.250 without providing actual and sufficient opportunity of hearing. This is true and correct.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 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 15.10.2024. 2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO passed

SINGDON RONGHANG,ASSAM vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Singdon Ronghang Ito Ward, 2, Dimapur Tuliram Ronghang Rongtheang, Dimapur-797103, Karbianglong, Diphu-782460, Vs. Nagaland Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cdppr0948Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dipak Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.03.2026

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. At the time of hearing neither the assessee nor the ld. AR appeared before the Bench to attend this appeal nor was any adjournment application moved by the assessee. Therefore, this appeal is heard and disposed off with the assistance of ld. DR, who pointed out that the assessee