BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No: 194/Ahd/2021 &\nITA No: 190/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year: 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah\nPlot No. 441-1, Sector-22\nNr. Police Chowkey,\nGandhinagar-382021\nPAN: ACSPS5653F\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nVs Gandhinagar\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. &\nMs. Krupa Panchal, CA\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 19-03-2025\nDate of

section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') relating\nto the Assessment Year 2008-09.\n2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 1607 days in filing\nITA No.194/Ahd/2021 and delay of 2513 days in filing ITA No.\n190/Ahd/2024.\n3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee

BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No: 194/Ahd/2021 &\nITA No: 190/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year: 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah\nPlot No. 441-1, Sector-22\nNr. Police Chowkey,\nGandhinagar-382021\nPAN: ACSPS5653F\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. &\nMs. Krupa Panchal, CA\nRevenue Represented:\nDate of hearing\nDate of pronouncement\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R.\n: 19-03-2025\n: 03-04-2025\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nV

section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') relating\nto the Assessment Year 2008-09.\nI.T.A No. 194/Ahd/2021 & ITA 190/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah vs. ITO\nPage No 2\n2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 1607 days in filing\nITA No.194/Ahd/2021 and delay

BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.192-193/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Shri Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.441-1, Sector-22, Vs. Ward-1, Nr. Police Chowkey, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar.

condoned. 6. We have perused the records and heard the rival submissions of both the sides. There was a delay of 1607 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before us. Certainly, the delay is significant. But length of the delay becomes insignificant if there was sufficient cause for such delay which prevented the assessee in filing ITA no.192-193/AHD/2021

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

section 263 to us, appears to be a plausible explanation, and there is no doubt that in the consequent assessment, the assessee was assessed multiple times to its returned income, which forced him into action and he came to the consult another legal adviser on whose advise the present appeal was filed before us. The delay in filing of appeal

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone such a huge delay. 5. We have perused the records and heard the rival submissions of both sides. There was a delay of 7 years and 3 months in filing the appeal by the assessee before us. Certainly, the delay is significant. But the length of the delay becomes insignificant if there was sufficient cause for such a delay

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone such a huge delay. 5. We have perused the records and heard the rival submissions of both sides. There was a delay of 7 years and 3 months in filing the appeal by the assessee before us. Certainly, the delay is significant. But the length of the delay becomes insignificant if there was sufficient cause for such a delay

MAHESHRAJ CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.791/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1999-2000 Dcit, Mahesraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Vs. 141, Phase Ii, Gidc, Vatva, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382330 Pan:Aabcm0424C

condoned. 7. The next controversy arises whether the delay of 1569 days was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when there was the reasonable cause which prevented that assessee in filing the appeal. As such we need to consider the cause for the delay and not the length of the delay. Accordingly

RADHE FINSEC INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 249(3) are not fulfilled, and hence, the appeal is treated as time barred. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in so holding inspite of the fact that the Appellant had filed an affidavit explaining the reasonability of the cause in delay in filing appeal before him by way of affidavit explaining the circumstances due to which the delay occurred

THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 442/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 The Government Servants Co-Op. Credit I.T.O., Society Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Hindi Bhavan, Vadodara. Sanstha Vasahat Raopura, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aabat5146J

condoned. 6. The next controversy arises whether the delay of 1226 days was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when there was reasonable cause which prevented assessee in filing the appeal. As such we need to consider the cause for the delay and not the length of the delay. Accordingly in our considered view

CAT COSMETICS AND HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and set aside the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 5. Per contra, Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue strongly opposed the delay and requested to confirm the order passed by the Lower Authorities especially when the assessment order itself is an exparte order. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

153 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that, at the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June, 2009, i.e., prior to the amendment in section 153C(1) of the Act with effect from 1st June, 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to seek to point

SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

153 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that, at the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June, 2009, i.e., prior to the amendment in section 153C(1) of the Act with effect from 1st June, 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to seek to point

SHRI DEEPAK BUDHARMAL VASWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

153 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that, at the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June, 2009, i.e., prior to the amendment in section 153C(1) of the Act with effect from 1st June, 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to seek to point

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

153 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that, at the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June, 2009, i.e., prior to the amendment in section 153C(1) of the Act with effect from 1st June, 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to seek to point

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

153 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that, at the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June, 2009, i.e., prior to the amendment in section 153C(1) of the Act with effect from 1st June, 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to seek to point

SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

153 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that, at the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June, 2009, i.e., prior to the amendment in section 153C(1) of the Act with effect from 1st June, 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to seek to point

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR VASWANI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

153 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that, at the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June, 2009, i.e., prior to the amendment in section 153C(1) of the Act with effect from 1st June, 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to seek to point

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

153 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that, at the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June, 2009, i.e., prior to the amendment in section 153C(1) of the Act with effect from 1st June, 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to seek to point

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

153 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that, at the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June, 2009, i.e., prior to the amendment in section 153C(1) of the Act with effect from 1st June, 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to seek to point