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

EDUCATION INDIA, SHILLONG,SHILLONG vs. ITO, WARD-1, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3) of Section 253 of the I.T. Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 due to the circumstances stated hereinabove & thereby delay is caused by 19 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati. I.T.A. No.: 15/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: N.A. Education India. In the above premises it is also submitted that the Undersigned executed an Affidavit under

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

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(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the provisions of section 253

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

253 ITR 749, 172 CTR 339, 121 TAXMANN 43, (2002) 108 COMP. CAS. 675 (GUJ.)] and others “In the background of the aforesaid discussion and Judicial Pronouncements cited above, considering the averments of the AO, it is evident that the reasons stated by the Assessing Officer while Page 12 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year

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

253 ITR 749, 172 CTR 339, 121 TAXMANN 43, (2002) 108 COMP. CAS. 675 (GUJ.)] and others “In the background of the aforesaid discussion and Judicial Pronouncements cited above, considering the averments of the AO, it is evident that the reasons stated by the Assessing Officer while Page 12 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year

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

253 ITR 749, 172 CTR 339, 121 TAXMANN 43, (2002) 108 COMP. CAS. 675 (GUJ.)] and others “In the background of the aforesaid discussion and Judicial Pronouncements cited above, considering the averments of the AO, it is evident that the reasons stated by the Assessing Officer while Page 12 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year

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

253 ITR 749, 172 CTR 339, 121 TAXMANN 43, (2002) 108 COMP. CAS. 675 (GUJ.)] and others “In the background of the aforesaid discussion and Judicial Pronouncements cited above, considering the averments of the AO, it is evident that the reasons stated by the Assessing Officer while Page 12 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year

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

253 ITR 749, 172 CTR 339, 121 TAXMANN 43, (2002) 108 COMP. CAS. 675 (GUJ.)] and others “In the background of the aforesaid discussion and Judicial Pronouncements cited above, considering the averments of the AO, it is evident that the reasons stated by the Assessing Officer while Page 12 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year

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)

delayed by 68 days for which the assessee has filed condonation petition in which it has been stated as under: “1. That the Appellant is preferring the accompanying Appeal under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the Order dated 27.02.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 3