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 144 of the Act passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 1.1 In all these 4 appeals, the common ground is that there was delay in filing of appeals ranging from 58 days to 758 days before the Ld. CIT(A) as under: (a) ITA No. 297/Gty/2025- delayed by 758 days (reasons given by the assessee for the said delay

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 144 of the Act passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 1.1 In all these 4 appeals, the common ground is that there was delay in filing of appeals ranging from 58 days to 758 days before the Ld. CIT(A) as under: (a) ITA No. 297/Gty/2025- delayed by 758 days (reasons given by the assessee for the said delay

ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(4), SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. NORTH EAST SOCIETY OF SISTERS OF THE HOLY CROSS, MEGHALAYA

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section. 2. For that the learned A.O., CPC was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1) when CBDT vide Circular No. 2/2020 has issued beneficial circular for condonation of delay prior to processing of return. 3. For that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the exemption claimed falls under sec. 143(1)(a)(ii)-Incorrect

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIGBOI, DIGBOI vs. ARUNACHAL TEA COMPANY, MARGHERITA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing the Cross objection is also condoned and the CO is also admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income seeking deduction under section

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

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

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 the delay. Suman Ahmed 4

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

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

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 the\nLearned

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

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)

4. Before we adverting to the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, one of the core issues raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider its condonation prayer for delay of 522 days while appeal filed u/s. 246A on 22.05.2018. Subsequently, same was rejected vide order dated 28.11.2018. While on perusal

SPECIAL JUDGE ASSAM GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-TDS2, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

section 234E, contending that it is ultra vires and illegal. 3. The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 31.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee citing the reason that appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months and there was lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4

SPECIAL JUDGE ASSAM GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-TDS2, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

section 234E, contending that it is ultra vires and illegal. 3. The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 31.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee citing the reason that appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months and there was lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4

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

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 the appeal

SHRI ASHISH KUMAR DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Section 158BFA(2) on the differential amount. 14. The second proviso appended with s. 158BC(1) prohibits an assessee to revise its return filed for the block period. This in response to a notice under s. 158BC if an assessee had filed the return of income, it cannot revise that return. 15. Sec. 158BFA(1) contemplates that if the assessee

SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Section 158BFA(2) on the differential amount. 14. The second proviso appended with s. 158BC(1) prohibits an assessee to revise its return filed for the block period. This in response to a notice under s. 158BC if an assessee had filed the return of income, it cannot revise that return. 15. Sec. 158BFA(1) contemplates that if the assessee

SMT. MAYA RANI DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Section 158BFA(2) on the differential amount. 14. The second proviso appended with s. 158BC(1) prohibits an assessee to revise its return filed for the block period. This in response to a notice under s. 158BC if an assessee had filed the return of income, it cannot revise that return. 15. Sec. 158BFA(1) contemplates that if the assessee

ADARSHA SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITTEE,NAGAON vs. ITO, WARD-NAGAON, NAGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahui.T.A. No. 331/Gty/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Adarsha Samaj Kalyan Samittee,.....……..Appellant Belaguri Natun Bazar, P.O. Solmari, P.S. Rupahi, Solmari B.O., Sastri Nagar, Nagaon-782002, Assam [Pan:Aabaa1582B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………..……………..…...Respondent Ward-Nagaon, Rkb Road, Hazibergaon, Nagaon, Nagoon-782001, Assam Appearances By: Shri Anil Jha, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 22, 2026 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the order ex-parte as the assessee failed to produce satisfactory documentary evidences in support of his claim inspite of sufficient opportunities given. He also submitted that even the assessment order has been passed under section

SHIWAJI PD. JAISWAL,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: "Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

delay is excessive and unexplained to a satisfactory degree and relying on the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji, (1987) 167 ITR 171 (SC), the same judgment was also relied by the assessee and he dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee field