SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the issues afresh on merits in all the three appeals of the assessee, after considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F

SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the issues afresh on merits in all the three appeals of the assessee, after considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F

DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

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

271F, section 271FA, 99[section 271FAB.] section 271FB, section 271G, 1[section 271GA,J 2[section 271GB,] section 271H, 3 section 271-1], 4[section 271J,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 2728 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

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

271F, section 271FA, 99[section 271FAB.] section 271FB, section 271G, 1[section 271GA,J 2[section 271GB,] section 271H, 3 section 271-1], 4[section 271J,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 2728 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

JAGRUTIBEN DALPATBHAI BHA vs. AR,VISNAGARVS.THE ITO, WARD-5, PATAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Jagrutiben Dalpatbhai Bhavsar Ito, Ward-3(2)(5) 34, Shri Nagar Society Vs Patan. Mehsana Road Visnagar Pan : Aklpb 1800 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : None Assessee By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29.11.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac” For Short) Relating To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Solitary Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Of Rs.5,000/- For Failure To File Return Of Income In Response To The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2

section 271F of the Act. Aggrieved against this penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the NFAC. 4. Before the NFAC there is a delay in filing appeal (how many days’ delay has not been specified in this order) and requested for condonation

LAXMANJI KHODAJI SOLANKI (THAKOR),GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

section 115BBE of\nthe Act.\n\n8. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C & 234D are\nunjustified.\n\n9. Initiation of penalty u/s 271F is unjustified.\n\n10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified.\"\n\n5. The appeal is filed belatedly before us by a delay of 198\ndays. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that

KUVARGIRI HIRAGIRI GOSAI,JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamblekuvar Giri Hiragiri Gosai The Income Tax Vs. Panch Dash Nam Juna Akhada Officer, Thana Pati Kuvar Bharthi Ward-1 (2), Guru Shri Indra Bharthi Bhavnagar – 364 002 Junagadh – 362 001

section 271F of the Act.” 3. The appeal is delayed by 72 days. An Affidavit dated 08/01/2026 in support of condonation

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:

Sections 271AAC, 272A(1)(d), and 271F of the Act for non- compliance and non-filing of return. Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 3 3. Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal proceedings also proceeded ex-parte, as the assessee did not respond to multiple

BRAMVISHMA DATA & MAILING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD- 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.240/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bramvishma Data & Mailing The Ito बनाम/ Services Pvt.Ltd. Ward-1(1)(2) V/S. C/O. Divyang Shah & Co.,Cas Ahmedabad – 380 015 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Off. C.G. Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccb 6364 M अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Maulik Kansara, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Facts of the Case: 4. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act as the assessee had not filed its return of income for the AY 2011-12 despite having received contract receipts of Rs.2

VISHWAS COMODITY,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PATAN

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14

Condonation of delay 3 1,18,10,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A and taxed the same under section 115BBE. Penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271F

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in the filing of the appeal and hence the same is hereby condoned. 5. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “Non-jurisdiction of AO 1) The case was re-opened by AO who never had jurisdiction over the assessee as the assessee was never residing or having any address in ALWAR i.e. the jurisdiction

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in the filing of the appeal and hence the same is hereby condoned. 5. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “Non-jurisdiction of AO 1) The case was re-opened by AO who never had jurisdiction over the assessee as the assessee was never residing or having any address in ALWAR i.e. the jurisdiction

BHARATBHAI RAGHAVBHAI JOGRANA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

sections 271AAC, 272A(1)(d), and 271F for non-compliance and failure to file the return of income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, throughout the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not respond to any of the five hearing notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) between 2021 and 2024. Observing

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

Section 1448(9) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in assessing income of 2,10,18,000/- without verifying the actual cost of acquisition and sale consideration and merely relying on system-generated information without any independent inquiry or supporting evidence. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled judicial position laid down

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member | ITA No: 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 | | Assessment Year: 2015-16 | | Baraiya Galaji Kalaji 93 Arjun Vas, Nana Chiloda, B.O. Ahmedabad Gandhinagar-382330 Gujarat, India PAN: BEMPB9663R (Appellant) | Vs | The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar Gandhingar (Respondent) | Assessee Represented: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 03-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-

Section 1448(9) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in assessing income of 2,10,18,000/- without verifying the actual cost of acquisition and sale consideration and merely relying on system-generated information without any independent inquiry or supporting evidence. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled judicial position laid down

AMIT KIRITBHAI MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Amit Kiritbhai Mehta The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) 272, Krishna, Manekbaug Society Vejalpur Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad Pan: Agapm 0534 H (Applicant) (Responent) : None 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 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

condonation of delay, since the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed on merits for non-prosecution. Facts of the Case 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer (AO), on the basis of AIR information and data obtained from the banker under section 133(6), noticed cash deposits aggregating to Rs.92,76,000/- during

THE VANDELI DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before

MOHAN RAMCHANDANI,BANGLORE vs. ACIT-INTL TAX-2 AHEMDABAD, AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mohan Ramchandani Acit-Intl Tax-2 Flat-11001 Boddaballapur Road Vs. Ahmedabad. Presting Monte Carlo Yelahanka Satelite Town So Bangalore North. Pan : Adgpr 0211 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Assessee By : Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a non- resident individual who filed his return of income on 13.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.21,50,920/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of deduction/exemption from capital gains and investment

HEMA VIRAL JOSHI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

condone the delay, and as a result, her appeals were dismissed without being considered on merits. (ii) In case of Viral Vinodchandra Joshi 3.2. The assessee did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 within the prescribed time under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer (AO) under