YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

5 penalty orders lying in his post box, following which he immediately consulted a tax consultant and filed the appeal. The CIT(A), however, held that the explanation furnished was not sufficient to justify the inordinate delay of over seven years and eight months in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not provide

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

5 penalty orders lying in his post box, following which he immediately consulted a tax consultant and filed the appeal. The CIT(A), however, held that the explanation furnished was not sufficient to justify the inordinate delay of over seven years and eight months in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not provide

ITO, WARD-3(3)(12),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JITENDRA SHANABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed & C

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA No.2571/Ahd/2017 & CO No.43/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 4 of 5 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ahmedabad Urban Development authority treated the said land as commercial as the said land falls in the Ahmedabad Municipal jurisdiction. Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee is in the business

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

50C of the Act pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act, though the directions were specifically in relation to section 50(2) of the Act. The Ld. AO without bringing any fresh material on record of affording an opportunity of being heard, exceeded the scope of directions and violated

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

50C of the Act pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act, though the directions were specifically in relation to section 50(2) of the Act. The Ld. AO without bringing any fresh material on record of affording an opportunity of being heard, exceeded the scope of directions and violated

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

50C of the Act pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act, though the directions were specifically in relation to section 50(2) of the Act. The Ld. AO without bringing any fresh material on record of affording an opportunity of being heard, exceeded the scope of directions and violated

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

50C of the Act pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act, though the directions were specifically in relation to section 50(2) of the Act. The Ld. AO without bringing any fresh material on record of affording an opportunity of being heard, exceeded the scope of directions and violated

DILIP MOHANDAS DEVANI,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above directions

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Dilip Mohandas Devani, had sold an immovable property on 16.01.2012. The sale deed showed the total consideration for the property at ₹41,00,151/-, which had been shared equally among five co-owners, including

LALJIBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI GAUDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHEMDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2012-13

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 22.03.2013 declaring income of Rs.22,44,370/-. The Assessing Officer had subsequently received an information that assessee had sold a land on 08.07.2011 for consideration of Rs.14

SHRI ATUL CHANDRAKANT SHAH,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Smt.Annapurna Gupta

Section 50C(2) of the Act. He could raise plea before the learned CIT(A), but after the decision of the learned CIT(A), he has accepted the result and did not chose to file the appeal for long six years. There is hardly any plausible explanation for this delay. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the explanation

SHRI ATUL CHANDRAKANT SHAH,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Smt.Annapurna Gupta

Section 50C(2) of the Act. He could raise plea before the learned CIT(A), but after the decision of the learned CIT(A), he has accepted the result and did not chose to file the appeal for long six years. There is hardly any plausible explanation for this delay. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the explanation

RAJESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

5(3)(4), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”], vide order dated 30.11.2019, for the assessment year 2012–13. 2 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 The Registry has noted that the present appeal is delayed by 366 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit dated

PRAVINBHAI LADHABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.03.2013 declaring income of Rs.10,34,390/- , which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO had received an information that the assessee hat advanced unsecured loan

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section