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

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condonation of delay were not sufficient enough to be considered for relief as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. 2

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

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condonation of delay were not sufficient enough to be considered for relief as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. 2

ARECA GLOBAL ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The

condoning the said delay and hence, he has dismissed the appeal in limine. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we are persuaded by the arguments of Ld. AR that in the interests of substantive justice, another opportunity should be provided to the assessee for presenting the facts. However, since even before us there is no written submission about

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

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

Section 249(3) of the Act. 2.2 Before us, the Ld. AR mentioned that even in the affidavit filed before the ITAT for requesting condoning of delay in filing appeal thereon it has been clearly mentioned that the assessee is old and suffering from depression and other age-related problems. It is due to this that he was not alert

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

SHAUQUAT ALAM,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

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

delay of 10 months, which implies the assessee’s attitude and deliberate action on the part of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that, it is abundantly clear that, the appeal filed by the assessee is not in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation

SHAUQUAT ALAM,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

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

delay of 10 months, which implies the assessee’s attitude and deliberate action on the part of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that, it is abundantly clear that, the appeal filed by the assessee is not in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation