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

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

b) ITA No. 298/Gty/2025 – There was a delay of 581 days in the filing of the first appeal (reasons given by the assessee are at pages 4 and 5 of the impugned order). I.T.A. Nos. 297-300/GTY/2025 Shibu Roy (c) ITA No. 299/Gty/2025 – There was a delay of 577 days in the filing of the first appeal (reasons given

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

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

b) ITA No. 298/Gty/2025 – There was a delay of 581 days in the filing of the first appeal (reasons given by the assessee are at pages 4 and 5 of the impugned order). I.T.A. Nos. 297-300/GTY/2025 Shibu Roy (c) ITA No. 299/Gty/2025 – There was a delay of 577 days in the filing of the first appeal (reasons given

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The

B. Financial Impact of Erroneous Tax Demand: I.T.A. No. 22/GTY/2025 Areca Global Associates Private Limited The unjustified tax addition significantly affects the financial position of the Appellant Company. In Sri Channabasaveshwara Swamy Rural v. ITO (Exemptions) ITA Nos. 582- 592/Bang/2023, the Bangalore ITAT held that delays should be condoned when the assessment involves a substantial financial burden. C. Principles

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

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