SMT. NEELU SANJAY GUPTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, The Dy. Cit, Vs. 9Th Floor, Cambay Grand Hotel, Central Circle-2(2), S.G. Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Adypg 0351 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Bhati, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

delay filed by the assessee. Smt Neelu Sanjay Gupta Vs. DCIT AY : 2013-14 2 3. Before proceeding to deal with the condonation application, it is necessary to bring out a brief background of the case before us. In the impugned case, assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, making addition of loans and advances allegedly received

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

section 263 to us, appears to be a plausible explanation, and there is no doubt that in the consequent assessment, the assessee was assessed multiple times to its returned income, which forced him into action and he came to the consult another legal adviser on whose advise the present appeal was filed before us. The delay in filing of appeal

M/S. S S STRIPS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. S.S. Strips Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Shyam Villa-2, Circle 4(1)(1), Opp. Krishna Bungalows, Ahmedabad Nr. Gala Gym Khana Club, Vs. Bopal Police Station Road, Bopal, Ahmedabad (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 0943 L Assessee By Shri Kishore Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2022

condoning the delay. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was right in passing ex-parte order in violation of principles of natural justice by confirming an illegal penalty order of the AO which was against the principles of natural justice, fair play, bad in law and ab initio

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

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

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.

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

M/S. ROSY ROYAL MINERALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

68,615. Subsequently the same was assessed by The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Ahmedabad and Assessment Order was passed u/s.143{3) of the Act dated 31.01.2014 by assessing Total Income at Rs 42,84,97,380/-. 4. That aggrieved against above Assessment order, appeal before Hon'ble CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad was preferred by the Company. The appellate

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

condone the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017–18 on 27.10.2017, declaring a meagre income of Rs.940/-. The case was reopened by the Assessing

MOHMMADHAROON BABUBHAI SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Mohmmadharoon Babubhai Shaikh The Ito, Shrine Co-Op Ind. Estate Vs. Ward-1(1)(2) Rakhial, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Afaps 2723 P (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vipul Gohil, Ca Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetisation period. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 The appeal

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:

68 as 147 read assessee to unexplained with provide credits due to Section adequate non- 144B evidence or compliance substantiate and lack of the substantiatio transactions n of the during the transactions. proceedings. ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 2.3. The assessee preferred appeals before CIT(A) against the orders

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:

68 as 147 read assessee to unexplained with provide credits due to Section adequate non- 144B evidence or compliance substantiate and lack of the substantiatio transactions n of the during the transactions. proceedings. ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 2.3. The assessee preferred appeals before CIT(A) against the orders

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:

section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of more than two years. The delay was attributed to the assessee’s illiteracy, lack of understanding of the proceedings (as the notices were in English), and the mistaken belief that agricultural income was not taxable. The assessee submitted an affidavit

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:

section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of more than two years. The delay was attributed to the assessee’s illiteracy, lack of understanding of the proceedings (as the notices were in English), and the mistaken belief that agricultural income was not taxable. The assessee submitted an affidavit

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:

section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of more than two years. The delay was attributed to the assessee’s illiteracy, lack of understanding of the proceedings (as the notices were in English), and the mistaken belief that agricultural income was not taxable. The assessee submitted an affidavit

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

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

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

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

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

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

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

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under

NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under

NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under