HUSENI STATIONERY & PAPER MART,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GODHRA, GODHRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 1971/Ahd/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning delay of 367 days, without giving any notice of hearing. ITA Nos. 1971&1972/Ahd/2024 Huseni Stationery & Paper Mart vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding reopening of assessment beyond three years for alleged escapement of income below Rs.50lakhs. 3. Learned CIT(A) erred

HUSENI STATIONERY & PAPER MART,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GODHRA, GODHRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 1971/Ahd/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning delay of 367 days, without giving any notice of hearing. ITA Nos. 1971&1972/Ahd/2024 Huseni Stationery & Paper Mart vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding reopening of assessment beyond three years for alleged escapement of income below Rs.50lakhs. 3. Learned CIT(A) erred

JIVRAJBHAI RAMABHAI CHAUDHARY,BANASKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Jivarajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary Income Tax Officer Patel Vas, Village : Hadta, Jadiya Vs Ward-3 Tal. Dhanera Palanpur. Dist: Banaskantha Gujarat. Pan : Azzpp 6148 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Assessee By : Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

delay is condoned, and I proceed to dispose of the appeal on its merits. 4. Taking up now the appeal of the assessee for adjudication, the issue arising in the present appeal relates to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in his bank account to the tune of Rs.14,98,000/- during

FAEZA NISARAHMED SONIWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Faeza Nisarahmed Soniwala Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(3)(1) A-605, M.B. Tower Ahmedabad. Opp: Cama Hotel Nr. Asopalav Flats Khanpur Ahmedabad 380 001. Pan : Bxops 6918 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Khandhar, Ar : Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

condone the delay of 611 days in filing 3 the appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal shall now be disposed of on its merits. 5. Firstly, we note from the ground of appeal given in Form no.36 that the only grievance of the assessee is against the addition of Rs.16,28,500/- under section 69A as unexplained money and calculating

JAYESHKUMAR HARJANI,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

demonetization period;\nRs.1,44,000/- under Section 69C towards household expenditure\nallegedly incurred from unexplained sources.\n3.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before\nthe Ld. CIT(A) on 13.02.2020, i.e., with a delay of 17 days from the prescribed\ntime limit under Section 249(2)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), without\nadjudicating

MALINI JIGNESH DOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condonation of delay stands allowed and the case is allowed to be heard on Merits. Malini Jignesh Doshi vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– On Merits 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income

GOMTIDAS GOVINDRAM SADHU,RAMJI MANDIR SHERTHA, GANDHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 GANDHINAGAR, UDYOG BHAWAN, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes with a direction as above

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 344/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18

delay of 362 days is hereby condoned. Gomtidas Govindram Sadhu vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 3 Facts of the Case 5. The assessee is an individual engaged in performing religious duties as a priest of Ramji Mandir, Shertha. The assessee did not file a return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on information received, the AO noticed that

HARDE vs. INGH P. CHUDASAMA PROP. BHAVANI TRANSPORT,AHMEDABADVS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Shri Hardevsingh P Chudasama, The Principal Prop. Bhavani Transport, बनामVs Commissioner Of . Opp. Jain Temple, Income Tax-3, Dholera, Ahmedabad. Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad-382455. Pan: Adgpc0026R

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 8. As regards to order passed u/s.263 of the Act, the Ld.AR submitted that the cash deposits was already examined by the Assessing Officer while passing the order u/s.144 of the Act dated 24.12.2019. The cash deposits were made during the demonetization

RAMESHKUMAR GORDHANJI GELOT,DEESA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 NOW WARD-1, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading of potatoes. For the Asst. Year 2017-18, the assessee has not filed his Return of Income. Hence a notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on various dates. The Assessing Officer

VALJIBHAI ARJANBHAI VEGAD,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(9), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1063/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Rajput Street Ward-1(9) V/S. Nawangam Ga Bhavnagar- 364 002 Tal : Vallabhipur Bhavnagar – 364 313 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aykpv 0860 F अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

demonetization period (November 2016 to December 2016), cash deposits totalling to Rs.12,55,100/- were made in the assessee's bank account, along with other deposits throughout the financial year, aggregating to Rs.66,23,500/-. The AO issued several notices under Sections 142(1) and 144 of the Act, requiring the assessee to file a return of income and explain

ASHOKKUMAR RAGHUNATHDAS AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, AAYKAR BHAWAN, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Ashokkumar Raghnathdas Agrawal Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3)(4) B-59, 3Rd Floor, Ahmedabad. Sumel Business Park-1 B/H. New Cloth Market Raipur, Ahmedabad Pan : Abhpa 1665 R

delay in filing the appeal of 10 days is hereby condoned. 7. The assessee has filed the following additional grounds of appeal: “The Hon' CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the Id. AO without considering that the entire assessment proceedings and consequential assessment order are bad in law, and void

THAKKAR MUKESHBHAI KESHAVLAL, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Thakkar Mukeshbhai Keshavlal Huf Ito, Ward-3(3)(5) 456, 45Th Floor, Titanium City Centre Vs. Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Nr.Sachin Tower Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaaht 1750 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Rupesh R. Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/05/2025

demonetization was treated as an afterthought and a colourable device to introduce unaccounted money into the books under the guise of cash sales. The AO also noted that frequent RTGS receipts from Ashutosh Suiting Pvt. Ltd. and Vishnu Laxmi Textiles pointed to the assessee’s core business activity being textile trading and not jewellery. Consequently, the Assessing Officer held

MANISH N. AMIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2017-18

delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice Ground No. 2 Addition u/s 69A 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 47,16,000/- u/s 69A by treating the cash deposited during the demonetisation period as unexplained, without appreciating that the said cash represented duly recorded cash sales made

HIRALKUMARI ANUPKUMAR ARORA,ANAND, GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 3, ANAND, ANAND, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. The case of the assessee was identified in Actionable Information Monitoring System (AIMS) for cash deposit of Rs.20,28,646/- during demonetization

KANUBHAI RAHABHAI BHARVAD,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.03.2018 declaring income of Rs.32,78,060/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment, no compliance was made

RAMESHBHAI POPATBHAI CHAUDHARI,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year 2017-18

condone the delay of 385 days in filing of the present appeal. 7. The order was pronounced in the open court. Thereafter, the appeal was proceeded to be adjudicated. The grounds raised by the assessee reads a under:- 3 I.T.A No. 1961/Ahd/2024 Rameshbhai Popatbhai Chaudhari, A.Y. 2017-18 “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

DIXITKUMAR BHIKHALAL MORKHIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Dismissed The Appeal For Non-Prosecution.

demonetization period. Hence a show cause notice was issued to the assessee to explain the details, which was not responded by the assessee and resulted in making addition u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 50,24,243/- namely cash deposit in his bank account for the entire financial year. 3. Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed an appeal before

PRAHLADBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL L/H. OF LATE DAHYABHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 352/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Prahladbhai Dahyabhai Patel, L/H Of Late Shri Dahyabhai The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ishwarbhai Patel, Ward-1, At Pirojpura, Post Sardarpura, Patan Taluko Vijapur, Mehsana Pan : Atjpp 7158 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of the appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that both the assessment order and the ld. CIT(A)’s order were ex-parte, but he stated that the addition made to the income of the assessee was not warranted since all facts relating