RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

condone the impugned delay of 581 days in filing appeal ITA No.649 /Ahd/2023 5 before the Tribunal, and proceed to take up the appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merit. 7. The grievance of the assessee against the impugned order are given in the grounds of appeal, which read as under: “1. That on facts

SHRI MAHUDI MADHUPURI JAIN NSM BHOJANSHALA & PRASHADI BHAVAN,,MAHUDI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, EXEMPTION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11 of the Act when no such adjustment is called for. 4. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that appellant has not filed the return within time even when there is no such requirement for claiming exemption u/s 11 and 12.” 4

TRILOKNATH VATSALYA VATIKA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT,CPC, BANGALORE PRESENT JAO- THE ITO, WARD-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1092/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika The Dy.Cit बनाम/ At Balva Cpc Bangalore. V/S. Nr. Tahuko Hotel Present Jao Kalol The Ito Ward-1(Exemption) Gandhinagar – 382 001 Ahmedabad-380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aants 5604 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2025 Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-Gwalior [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

139(1) of the Act. Since the appellant failed to furnish Form 10B within the prescribed time, the CPC was justified in denying exemption under sections 11 and 12. The CIT(Appeals) also referred to CBDT Circular No. 16/2022 dated 19.07.2022, which authorizes condonation of delay in filing Form 10B up to three years by the Principal Chief Commissioner

RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION,ANAND vs. CPC, BENGALURU JURIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.927/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rural Development Cpc, Bengaluru बनाम/ Foundation Juris.Ao – The Ito Ward- V/S. Aitc, 2Nd Floor Exemption Narayan Complex Vadodara – 390 007 Nr.Shubh Laxmi Shopping Centre Station Road Anand – 388 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabtr 1090 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 21/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Rural Development Foundation Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru Juris Ao The Ito, Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee reiterated that the delay in filing the return and Form 10B was caused by genuine hardship due to the serious illness of its controlling trustee and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.” 4.3 The ld. CIT(A) held that claim of deduction u/s. 80P claimed by the assessee in the return of income not filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act cannot be allowed, and since the assessee has filed return of income belatedly beyond the due date prescribed u/s 139

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.” 4.3 The ld. CIT(A) held that claim of deduction u/s. 80P claimed by the assessee in the return of income not filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act cannot be allowed, and since the assessee has filed return of income belatedly beyond the due date prescribed u/s 139

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

4– CIT(Appeals) observed that in view of the said circular, the assessee had a statutory remedy available to seek condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the exemption under section 11 could be allowed only if the delay in filing Form

HEALTH FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE,DAHOD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

139(1) of the Act, and no application for condonation of delay had been filed before the jurisdictional Commissioner as contemplated under section 119(2)(b). It was further submitted that the return of the assessee was not processed under section 143(1), and the assessment was completed under section 143(3), thereby requiring a stricter standard of compliance

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

delay of 672 days in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and deriving income from Salary, House Property, Capital Gain and Other sources. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, assessee filed its belated Return of Income u/s. 139(1) on 26.03.2014 declaring total income

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU CURRENT JURIS. -THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ld. Pcit, Which Was Pending Consideration. Therefore Assessee Filed Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed Stating That The Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Have The Power To Condone The Delay, Thereby Confirmed The Addition Made By Cpc.

4 Electronics & Quality Development Centre. Vs. DCIT under section 143(1) of the Act denying benefit of exemption under section 11 to assessee. During pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), assessee electronically uploaded Form 10B. The Commissioner (Appeals) admitted report in Form 10B filed during course of appellate proceedings and allowed benefit of section 11 of the Act to assessee

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

delayed return for A.Y. 2011-12 on June 26, 2015, declaring a total income of ₹34,05,800/-. Subsequently, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. A detailed questionnaire was sent on August 3, 2015, but the assessee did not comply. The assessee, who derived IT(SS)A Nos.449 & 44/Ahd/2019&2020 & 1562/Ahd/2019 & 270/Ahd/2021 DCIT

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

delayed return for A.Y. 2011-12 on June 26, 2015, declaring a total income of ₹34,05,800/-. Subsequently, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. A detailed questionnaire was sent on August 3, 2015, but the assessee did not comply. The assessee, who derived IT(SS)A Nos.449 & 44/Ahd/2019&2020 & 1562/Ahd/2019 & 270/Ahd/2021 DCIT

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

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 demonetization period

SHIKSHA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

4 Shiksha Foundation vs. ITO (22-07-2022] perfectly to the instant case of our appellant. As per CBDT Circular No. 273, dated 3-6-1980, CBDT had authorized only the jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay in filling Form 10B, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under section 119(2)(b) to condone delay

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

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