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

condone the delay by admitting the appeals for adjudication. We shall first take up IT(SS)A 1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11. IT(SS)A 1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 03. First, we would take up ITA(SS)A No.1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised legal issue challenging the jurisdiction

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 80-IE of the Act, which was denied by the CPC as the required audit report on Form No. 10CCB was not filed along

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act. Condoning the delay always advances cause of justice and afford opportunity to parties to contest the case on merits whereas; not condoning the delay results in denial of justice and deprive them of an opportunity. By this expression, we do not want to say that in every case delay should always be condoned

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

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

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 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

PURVANCHAL CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,GUWAHATI, ASSAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) (EXEMP), WARD-2(3) (EXEMP), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. In this case, the appeal arises from the order under Section 80G of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)], Kolkata [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(E)”], dated 27.01.2023. We find that in the impugned order, there is a very

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

5,46,15,477/-claimed u/s 801E & Rs 3,84,594/- u/s 36(1) (va) based on various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

5,46,15,477/-claimed u/s 801E & Rs 3,84,594/- u/s 36(1) (va) based on various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

5,46,15,477/-claimed u/s 801E & Rs 3,84,594/- u/s 36(1) (va) based on various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean

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

KENNETH BLAH,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

delay is condoned only in the interest of natural justice and the matter is taken up for adjudication as hereunder. 4 Kenneth Blah The Grounds of appeal, the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the assessee and the case laws adduced have been carefully considered. The facts of the case are that the assessee sold immovable property

GURU TEG BAHADUR ACADEMIC SOCIETY,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), EXEMPTION, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 11 (2) of the Act. 5. For that the Id. CIT was not justified both in law and on facts in arbitrarily branding the order of assessment passed by the Id. AO as erroneous which was passed after due application of mind by the Id. AO. 6. For that the impugned order having been passed in gross violation

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