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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The

condonation of delay is the primary step after which only the merit can be looked into. In this case, since the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a finding that as per section 249(3

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

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR 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

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

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

AMAR CHAND GANGWAL,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Your Honour Under Section 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Challenging The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Said Act By The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Noida For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. I Respectfully Submit That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Prescribed Time Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Difficulties Beyond My Control. The Appeal Was Due To Be Filed On Or Before 28.02.2025. There Is Delay Of 95 Days Only In Filing Of The Appeal. 3. I Am Aged About 81 Years & I Am Not Conversant With E-Mail, Digital / Internet

condoned as under: “1. The above appeal has been filed before your honour under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 17.12.2024 passed under section 250 of the said Act by the Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Noida for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. I respectfully submit that the appeal

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

SUMAN AHMED,GAURIPUR vs. ITO, WARD- DHUBRI, DHUBRI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.NFAC but with a delay of 98 days. The ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning

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

3) & (4) of Section 253 of the Act if the Tribunal is satisfied that there were sufficient causes and reasons for not presenting the appeals within the stipulated period. The Ld. A.R submitted that since the reasons attributable to late filing the appeal are beyond the control of the assessee, therefore in the interest of justice and fair play

GNRC LTD,DISPUR vs. ITO W-2(1), GUWAHATI, GS ROAD

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

3 years, 4 months and 14 days, which\nwas on account of bona fide and genuine reasons. The Id. Counsel for the\nassessee submitted that the order passed by the Learned CIT (A) is in\nviolation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and accordingly, the\nassessee needs to be given one more opportunity of hearing before

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

MEGHALAYA CO-OP. APEX BANK LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Meghalaya Co-Op. Apex Assistant Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle - Shillong Vs. M. G. Road, Shillong- 793001 (Pan: Aaam8227G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay in filing an appeal against order u/s 143(3)/263 after 522 days. The Learned CIT(A) did not consider the facts that during the intervening period of 522 days between the assessment order u/s 143(3)/263 dated 15/11/2016 and filing of appeal 2 Meghalaya Co-op Apex Bank Ltd., AY 2011-12 u/s 246A

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

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

delay as, mandated under 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

HAREN MAHANTA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

3)\nAaykarBhavan, Christian basti,\nGuwahati-781005, Assam\n(Respondent)\n\nPAN No. ALBPM8687K\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nDate of hearing:\nDate of pronouncement:\n: Shri Sidhant Sharma, AR\n: Shri Dipak Singh, DR\n12.03.2026\n13.03.2026\n\nORDER\nPER BENCH:\n\nThis is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred

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

JANARDAN MISRA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

condone the impugned delay in filing as neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of circumstances beyond his control. ITA No.260-261/Kol/2018 A.Ys. 92-93 & 93-94 Janardan Misra Vs. ITO Wd-1(3), Guwa Page 2 These two above cases ITA 260 and 261/Gau/2018 are taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that this

JANARDAN MISHRA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

condone the impugned delay in filing as neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of circumstances beyond his control. ITA No.260-261/Kol/2018 A.Ys. 92-93 & 93-94 Janardan Misra Vs. ITO Wd-1(3), Guwa Page 2 These two above cases ITA 260 and 261/Gau/2018 are taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that this