SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ It(Ss)A No. 45 & Ita No.204/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Rohitji Chanduji Thakore Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(1) Chandanami Nivas Vs Ahmedabad. Thakor Vas, Ambali Gam Ahmedabad. Pan : Adtpt 4435 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv Parimal Singh B. Parmar, Ar Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. IT(SS)A.No.45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No.1188 /Ahd/2019 3. Registry has pointed out that ITA No.45/Ahd/2020 is time barred by 132 days whereas ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 is time barred by 282 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit, which was sworn by the assessee

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

5. In view of the foregoing, especially when the assessee has not come with clean hands before us and has also failed to establish with cogent and proper evidence that there existed sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the stipulated period, delay of 902 days in filing appeal, can not be condoned.. As the appeal is barred

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

5. In view of the foregoing, especially when the assessee has not come with clean hands before us and has also failed to establish with cogent and proper evidence that there existed sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the stipulated period, delay of 902 days in filing appeal, can not be condoned.. As the appeal is barred

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

5. In view of the foregoing, especially when the assessee has not come with clean hands before us and has also failed to establish with cogent and proper evidence that there existed sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the stipulated period, delay of 902 days in filing appeal, can not be condoned.. As the appeal is barred

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section