BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

25 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai259Delhi151Kolkata150Mumbai96Bangalore88Nagpur59Hyderabad52Jaipur43Pune40Indore33Chandigarh26Ahmedabad25Lucknow25Surat24Cuttack18Amritsar17Visakhapatnam15Raipur10Allahabad7Varanasi6Cochin5Jodhpur4SC3Calcutta3Patna3Rajkot3Guwahati2Panaji1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 43B24Section 143(1)22Section 36(1)(va)19Disallowance18Section 143(3)16Addition to Income15Section 26313Section 15413Limitation/Time-bar

DIVERSIFIED SERVICES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 55/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Dipak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Agarwal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. 3. Now on merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in providing manpower to different clients. The assessee filed its income tax return for assessment year 2019-20 under section 139(1) electronically declaring the total income of " 56,640/-. The return

SANDEEPKUMAR MITHULAL MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

10
Deduction9
Section 368
Section 2507

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

ITA 1002/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1002/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, I.T.O., 7, Rajasthan Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Opp. Meghdoot Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad. Sahibaug, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana Sr. DR
Section 5

condone the delay of 389 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether the ITO was legally correct in arbitrarily issuing the summons in contravention

DARSHIT GUNWANTBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Darshit Gunantbhai Shah Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) B/2/236, Madhuvrund Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Ghatlodia Ahmedabad 380 061. Pan : Awmps 9760 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 25.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2021– 22, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.4,67,802/- Made Under Section 43B Of The Act By The Was Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

43B of the Act by the was confirmed. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 717 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. In support of the condonation, the assessee has filed a sworn affidavit dated 18.07.2025, wherein it has been stated that the order under section

MEDIP HEALTHTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1069/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 M/S.Medip Healthtech Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Sf-210, Devashish Business Park Vs. Cir.2(1)(1) Nr.Popular Domeinn, Satellite Vejalpur Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcm 0291 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Vinata Bhura, Ar Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 30Section 43B

43B, reducing total income to Rs.1,13,55,020/- and consequently reducing demand to Rs.11,26,200/-. However, CPC continued to apply the old rate of 30%, holding that the assessee had not furnished Form No. 10-IC electronically as required under Rule 21AE. 2.4 The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended

DIVYAPALSINH TEJPALSINH JADEJA,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

ITA 579/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

condone the delay of 14 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. 3. ITA No. 579/Ahd/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) is taken as the lead case. The Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor of M/s. Abhay Intelligence and Security Services and M/s. Divya Gas Agency. For the Asst. Year

DIVYAPALSINH TEJPALSINH JADEJA,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

ITA 578/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

condone the delay of 14 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. 3. ITA No. 579/Ahd/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) is taken as the lead case. The Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor of M/s. Abhay Intelligence and Security Services and M/s. Divya Gas Agency. For the Asst. Year

AIRONA TILES LIMITED,SABARKANTHA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE HIMATNAGAR PRESENTLY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1127/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1127/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Airona Tiles Limited The Dcit बनाम/ Ceramic City Circle Himatnagar. V/S. At & Post : Dalpur Presently The Dcit, Kathwada Road Circle-2(1)(1) Sabarkantha – 383 120 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 3712 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil N. Shah & Aatish Shah Ars Revenue By : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By Dcit/Acit, Circle Himatnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Airona Tiles Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle Himatnagar - Presently The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1) Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anil N. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 68

delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF. - Rs.10,100/- under Section 43B of the Act on account of Disallowance of professional tax. - Rs.9,640/- relating to (Prior period expenses) disallowed as they pertained to an earlier year. - Rs.65,000/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act being cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- in a day. - Rs.12,80,000/- under Section

NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 487/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. V. Tax Nirma House Circle-3(1)(1) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Near Income Tax Circle Gujarat Ahmedabad-380 009 Gujarat Pan: Aaacn 5353 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Hemanshu Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 & 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 19/05/2022 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2013-14 (Din & Order No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043081956(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Rectification Order Dated 16/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. V. Dcit Ay 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250Section 253(6)(c)Section 253(6)(d)

Section 253(6)(d). Thus, the appeal fee paid was deficient by Rs. 9500/- which the assesse is required to deposit, were the contention of ld. DR. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assesse will deposit the deficient fee of Rs. 9,500/- , although the assesse was earlier having a bonafide belief that the assesse was liable

GUJARAT BOROSIL LIMITED,BHARUCH vs. DCIT - CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 29/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 05/05/2022
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 43B of the act. As per first proviso, if the payment of contribution is made on or before the due date for furnishing return of income then same to be allowed. In view of this CIT(A) is not justified in disallowing the same. It is therefore submitted that CIT(A) be directed to allow the same as rightly

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SHRI CHIMANBHAI JOITRAM PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 591/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 591/Ahd/2020 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Years : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 43BSection 68

section 43B of the Act.?" 3. The Ld. DR at the outset brought to our notice that there is a delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue for 141 days which is falling during the covid-19 period, therefore, the same should be condoned

SHRI SANDEEP JAGDISHCHANDRA DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. TEH PR. CIT -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 176/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Shukhadia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

delay of 294 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 10.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 13,70,850/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act determining total income

TURAKHIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 677/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.677/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of decorative veneers and ply- woods and other related products and also dealing in finance & trading in shares and securities since last many years. The assessee filed its return of income on 09/09/2015

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R
Section 10BSection 80ISection 92C

condone the delay in filing the CO of the assessee. Hence, we admit the CO filed by the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merit. ITA No.204/Ahd/2013 with C.O.No.45/Ahd/2015 and 7 others A.Y. 2008-09 19 14.1 The first objection raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the alternate claim

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. KOTA BARAN TOLLWAY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2025/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R
Section 80I

delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby being condoned. On Merits: 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business of building infrastructure facilities and earning income by way of collecting toll from vehicles running on roads constructed by the assessee. DCIT vs. Kota Baran Tollway Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year

KHIMJI RAMDAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2) PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 500/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.500/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Khimji Ramdas India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, City Square Godrej Ahmedabad, Vs. Garden City, Jagatpur, Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad-382470 The Dcit, Pan : Aadck 6056 C Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Aatish Shah, Ar & Shri Anil N. Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R 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 (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 12.05.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Ao Wd. 2(1)(2) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Order Which Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Have Similarly Cit(A) Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Impugned Order Vide His Order Passed Us.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal Vide His Order Dtd.12-05-2023 Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052777862(1) Dtd. 12/05/2023. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Without Considering/Adjudicating

For Appellant: Shri Aatish Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr DR
Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Section 43B by inserting corresponding Explanations that although the impugned employees provident fund comes under the former provision only, the same is applicable from 01-04- 2021 onwards. Meaning thereby that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01-04- 2021. ” The fads of the above case is squarely applicable on our case. In view of the above

SHRI ARUN RAMANLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 43B

43B was deleted whereas addition made u/s.36(i)(va) of Rs.7,89,538/- was sustained and not deleted. 4. Being aggrieved by the intimation along with rectification under Section 154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time fo hearing none appeared on behalf

SHREE DHAIN AUTO LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE DCIT- CICLE-2(1)(1)), VADODARA

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

ITA 392/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 40A(2)(b)Section 43B

condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of transport operator and having fleet of vehicles and providing services mainly to corporate customers. For the Asst. Year 2015-16, assessee filed its Return of Income on 10-09-2015 declaring total income of Rs.68,09,140/-. The case

AMITKUMAR S. SOLANKI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, GODHRA

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

ITA 456/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 456/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18) Amitkumar S Solanki The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 63, Narayan Green Ward - 2, Godhra Vs. Banglows, Sama Savli Road, Vadodra - 390024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bnips7919E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Palak Pavagadhi, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2017- 18 Declaring An Income Of Rs.49,44,188/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act On 20.03.2019 & While Processing The Return An Addition Of Rs.25,99,845/- Was Made In Respect Of Unpaid Employees’ Contribution To Epf/Esi U/S.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

condoned. 5. On merits, the ld. AR submitted that in the absence of intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the exact reason for addition to the return of income was not known to the assessee. It was for this reason that no proper compliance could be made before the ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that there

PRASAD POLYFAB,GANDHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(1), GANDHINAGAR

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

ITA 1364/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri SN Divetia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr.DR
Section 40Section 43B

Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)/National Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 01.03.2024 & 24.02.2024 passed for the Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2022-23. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.1364/Ahd/2024 for AY 2020-21 1. Assessing

PRASAD POLYFAB,GANDHINAGAR vs. WARD (1) INCOME TAX OFFICER , GANDHINAGAR

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

ITA 1366/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri SN Divetia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr.DR
Section 40Section 43B

Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)/National Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 01.03.2024 & 24.02.2024 passed for the Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2022-23. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.1364/Ahd/2024 for AY 2020-21 1. Assessing