DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 21-12-2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) for the Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18. The primary challenge is against the addition of Rs.1,16,49,66,875/- and Rs.90

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

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

KHENGARSINH JADAVBHAI GOHEL ,PETLAD vs. ITO PETLAD, PETLAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 33 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. 4b) The ld. Departmental Representative submitted and prayed that the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A) be confirmed. On being asked about the compliance of Section 250(6) by ld. Addl/JCIT(A) while passing the appellate order, the ld. Departmental Representative fairly submitted

DIVYA BHALCHANDRA PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 12/07/2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1054298633(1), Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 13-10-2017 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The 1961 Act.

condone the delay of 7 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 6.2 On merits, I have considered the contentions raised by ld. Sr. DR during hearing

SHREENATH DEVELOPERS,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a builder / developer and for the impugned year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income showing “NIL” income. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason “introduction of large capital during

GOPALKRISHNA NAGINBHAI PATEL,PETLAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

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

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Against The Appellate Order Dated 8Th May, 2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi( Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052644110(1))

condone the delay of 265 days in filing this appeal belatedly by the assessee before ITAT beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3), and I proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merit. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). Thus

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

SUBHASHCHANDRA KESHAVLAL BAROT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, INTL. TAXN. -1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

condonation of delay and upholding the addition of Rs.25,97,250/ may please be deleted.” 3. As per the information, the Assessing Officer observed that during the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 the assessee made investments in shares of Rs.5,10,296/-. The assessee did not file return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11. This case was reported under

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

condone the delay of 34 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 5.2 The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that an ex- parte order was passed