GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits of Rs.272,59,22,944/- as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act, foreign remittance of Rs.45,59,238/- towards purchase of medical equipment as unexplained expenditure under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits of Rs.272,59,22,944/- as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act, foreign remittance of Rs.45,59,238/- towards purchase of medical equipment as unexplained expenditure under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits of Rs.272,59,22,944/- as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act, foreign remittance of Rs.45,59,238/- towards purchase of medical equipment as unexplained expenditure under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits of Rs.272,59,22,944/- as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act, foreign remittance of Rs.45,59,238/- towards purchase of medical equipment as unexplained expenditure under section

KARNAVATI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalkarnavati Developers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Vs. 1St Floor, Nirav Complex, Nr. Ward 2(1)(2), Navrang High School, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380013 [Pan :Aacck 7148 J] (Appellant Appellant Appellant) Appellant .. (Respondent Respondent Respondent) Respondent Appellant By : Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Appellant By : Appellant By : Respondent By: Respondent By Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Respondent By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025

Delay condoned. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised

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

HUSENI STATIONERY & PAPER MART,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GODHRA, GODHRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 1971/Ahd/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. 5. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the grounds of delay in filing of appeal. The CIT(Appeals) noted that in Form 35, the assessee admitted that there was a delay of 367 days in filing the appeal and also filed a petition seeking condonation

HUSENI STATIONERY & PAPER MART,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GODHRA, GODHRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 1971/Ahd/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. 5. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the grounds of delay in filing of appeal. The CIT(Appeals) noted that in Form 35, the assessee admitted that there was a delay of 367 days in filing the appeal and also filed a petition seeking condonation

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

69A of the Act and added the same to the total income, which was subject to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings under 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

CHIRAG BALKRISHNA PATEL,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY WARD-3(1)(2) VADODARA), GODHRA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chirag Balkrishna Patel Income Tax Officer, 15, Adarsh Society, Vs Ward-1, Godhra Vadodara Road, (Previous, Ito, Ward-3(1)(2), Halol, 389350 Vadodra) Gujarat Pan: Butpp1753 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31-10-2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – [National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)] (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”) Which Was Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “The Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”).

condoning the delay in filing of appeal. 2. The ld. CIT(A) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law has grossly erred as he has not decided the grounds of appeal raised before him on merit. 3. The ld. CIT(A) and ld. AO on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

MALINI JIGNESH DOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condonation of delay stands allowed and the case is allowed to be heard on Merits. Malini Jignesh Doshi vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– On Merits 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income

SINHUJ DUDH UTPADAK SAH MAN LIMITED,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee are as under: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in not condoning delay of 417 days in filing an appeal without appreciating facts

NIPA NISHITHBHAI PARIKH(EARLIER KNOWN AS NIPA K. MEHTA),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(10), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Nipa Nishithbhai Park Ito, Ward-3(2)(10) Earlier Known As Vs Ahmedabad. Nipa Kiritkumar Mehta A-96, Namrata Tenement Nr.Paras Nagar Bug Stop Isanpur, Ahmedabad 382 443 Pan : Aoxpm 5496 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Pamil H. Shah, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2045 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29 /04/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 69A of the Act. The assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), who noted that the appeal of the assessee was delayed by 231 days and no plausible explanation was given by the assessee for the delay, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by not condoning

JAGDISH PETHALJI CHAVDA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(7), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing\nto smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side.\nGround No. 1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming additions of Rs.\n88,64,304/- under Section 69A

ALPESHBHAI BALDEVBHAI RABARI,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Alpeshbhai Baldevbhai Rabari Ito, Ward-1 3, Rabarivas, Palaj Vs. Mehsana. Mehsana 384 410 Gujarat. Pan : Bwgpr 0788 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025

condone every lapse and must be applied with circumspection. 4.2 Balancing these two facets, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one opportunity to have his case decided on merits. The nature of the addition made by the AO, being the entire bank deposits of Rs.54,69,131/- treated as unexplained under section 69A, is a serious matter

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69A was wrongly applied, and that interest and penalties were wrongly levied. He also pleaded that since the legality of the original reassessment order was already under challenge in a separate appeal, the present proceedings arising out of section 263 should be kept in Jatinkumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2014-15 - 5– abeyance, and sought adjournments stating that

RAMESHKUMAR G. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5) PRESENT JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

delay is accordingly condoned, albeit with a\ncaution to the assessee to be more vigilant in future proceedings. The appeal\nis admitted for adjudication on merits.\n3.3 Facts of the Case\n3.1 The assessee filed his original return of income for A.Y. 2013–14 on\n29.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,44,950/-. Subsequently, during\nthe course of processing disclosures

NIDHIBEN MRUGESHKUMAR SHAH,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), WARD-5, ANAND

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

delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is condoned\nand the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.\n3.\nFacts of the Case\n3.1 The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the\nassessee was maintaining a savings bank account with Karur Vysya\nBank, Anand, and had not filed her return of income despite having\nincome above the taxable limit