CHINTAN BHARATBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 678/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

delay is condoned. 3. The appellant has challenged the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act to the tune

MAHEMUDKHAN AJAMUDDIN RANA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

sections 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) were also initiated for unexplained income and non-compliance to statutory notices, respectively. 4. In appeal, he Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal primarily on the ground of non-prosecution and refusal to condone the delay

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)

272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 2728 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section sub-section (1) of section 2 section 2728BB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be Imposable on the person

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)

272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 2728 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section sub-section (1) of section 2 section 2728BB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be Imposable on the person

DINESH RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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.1506/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 23, Shyam Sharan Part-2 Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Aarohi Club Road Ahmedabad Bopal-Ghuma Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Btbpp 3659 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

condoned. 7.1. It is also observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay without addressing the merits of the case, which is against the spirit of Section 250(6) of the Act. This section mandates that the CIT(A) must dispose of the appeal after examining both the facts and the law applicable

GOMTIDAS GOVINDRAM SADHU,RAMJI MANDIR SHERTHA, GANDHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 GANDHINAGAR, UDYOG BHAWAN, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes with a direction as above

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 344/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18

delay of 362 days is hereby condoned. Gomtidas Govindram Sadhu vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 3 Facts of the Case 5. The assessee is an individual engaged in performing religious duties as a priest of Ramji Mandir, Shertha. The assessee did not file a return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on information received, the AO noticed that

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

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

CHUDAJI THAKOR,VASAJADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

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

section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A No. 2049/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 2 Chudaji Thakor vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is delay of 30 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee explained that

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

MR. HASMUKHLAL MAVJIBHAI THAKKAR( PROP. OF M/S. NAVKAR POTEINS),DEESA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD-2, PALANPUR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 10. The Lrd. Assessing Officer has grievously erred in law in applying the provision of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act which was not in force. In absence of express enactment or necessary intendment, the Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 3 of 5 provisions of a statute which affect a right