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

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 249(3) of the Act. 2. Before us, the Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee was not conversant with taxation laws and was entirely dependent on his tax consultant, who was also supposed to receive the notices and respond to them appropriately. The Ld. AR pleaded that ignorance of tax procedures and incompetency of the tax consultant should

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 249(3) of the Act. 2. Before us, the Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee was not conversant with taxation laws and was entirely dependent on his tax consultant, who was also supposed to receive the notices and respond to them appropriately. The Ld. AR pleaded that ignorance of tax procedures and incompetency of the tax consultant should

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:

4 (1st paragraph) of the impugned order that an opportunity given at first appeal stage was not availed of to explain the delay substantially and appropriately keeping in view the provision of section 249(3) of the Act, the Ld. AR mentioned that due to a communication gap between the AR of the assessee and the assessee himself, appropriate compliance

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

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

249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 6. We observe that, the assessment order was under section 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to Page 2 of 4

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

249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 6. We observe that, the assessment order was under section 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to Page 2 of 4

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