TRIKAMBHAI KARSHANBHAI PADASALA,HEMAL VILLAGE, TALUKA JAFRABAD, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (3) (4) , AMRELI

condonation of delay.\n11. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed present\nappeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee\nis an individual filed his return of income on 27.03.2018 declaring total income\nof Rs.3,55,130/-. Subsequently case was selected for limited scrutiny as cash\nwas deposited during demonetization

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

delay is condoned in filing the\nappeal.\nPage 3 of 21\nITA No.185/RJT/2025\nBabubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya L/h of Late Smt. Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya\n6. Brief facts, as discernible from the orders of lower authorities are that the\nassessee Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya (PAN-GDQPS7714N) being an\nindividual filed its return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17,\ndeclaring total

HOTHI SAMAT KESHWALA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 408/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Hothi Samat Keshwala Ito, Wd – 2(4), At Visavada, Via Bokhira Porbandar, Vs. Income Tax Office, Nh-8E, Porbanadar – 360575 Porbandar Road, Porbandar-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Buppk0380P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 : 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 05.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Vide Order 21.10.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

condone the delay. 6. Succinct facts are that in assessee`s case, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, was issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Porbandar, on 13.02.2018, in which the assessee was requested to furnish return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on or before 15.03.2018. The assessee had not furnished return of income

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was erroneous as the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation for the full year on assets not put to use before 30.09.2016 and also erred in not properly investigating the cash deposits during demonetization

SAVITABEN NATHALAL VADI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay is condoned in filing the appeal.\n6. Brief facts qua issue are that the, in this case, the assessee did not file her return\nof income for the A. Y. 2017-18 as per provisions of section 139 of the I.T. Act,\n1961. As per credible written information available with AO, the assessee\ndeposited cash

RAJESH KANJIBHAI KORIYA,UPLETA vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.165/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay in the interest of justice and oblige.” 4. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that delay of 346 days had occurred because the assessee is a 7th standard educated and not verse with income tax proceedings and small businessman. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained that on advice of local person that assessee earned less

KUMAR VANJANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFIVER WARD 2(7), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 275/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing)

delay of 29 days, is condoned in filing the appeal. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well on fact in upholding, addition made by ld.assessing officer by adopting profit rate of 4% without considering nature of business, facts and circumstances of the case and comparative cases

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

delay is condoned in filing the cross objection.\n8. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an\nIndividual. The assessee has filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.)\n2017-18, on 31/01/2018, declaring therein total income of Rs. Nil/-. The return\nof income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later

SHREE MARU KANSARA SONI GNATI,ANJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. ITA No. 789/RJT/2025 A.Y 17-18 Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati 4. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee explained the facts of the assessee’s case that assessee trust has filed its original return of income on 13.09.2017, declaring nil income, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the proceedings under section

GHANSHYAMBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL,AT PO UMARDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 SURENDRANAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE IRISH BUILDING

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Surendranagar, Income Tax Near Swaminarayan Mandir, At Umarda, Vs. Office, Irish Building, Opp. Mela Ta.Muli, Dist. Surendranagar-363 510 Medan, Surendranagar-363 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brjpp 6166 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filling the present appeal. 5. The brief facts of the case that assessee deposited cash of Rs.12,16,500/- during period of demonetization

JAYPRAKASH BHOVANBHAI JAGANI HUF,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shri Jayprakash Bhovanbhai Jagani Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1) (Huf) Rajkot. Block No.1001, Rajdhani Apartment Opp: Purhkardham, University Road Rajkot 360 005. Pan : Aaghj 5696 F (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr

condone the delay. 4. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The Return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, was e-filed by the assessee on 21/02/2018, with returned income at Rs. 9,450/-, claiming exempt agriculture income of Rs. 4,83,289/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the learned CIT-A deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 5. Next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 7,54,700/- on account of cash payment under section

SHVETANG BALBHADRA VAISHNAV,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Court Hearing) Asstt. Year: (2017-18) Shvetang Balbhadra Vaishnav, Income Tax Officer, Block No.453, Shashvat, Street No.16, Ward-1, Junagadh, Vs. Rajivnagar, Nr.Moti Baug, Junagadh Aayakar Bhavan, Kalwa 362 001. Chowk, Junagadh-362 001 Pan : Aawpv 4357 M (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr

demonetization period. The addition confirmed is unjustified and uncalled for, which deserves to be deleted, may kindly be deleted. 4. Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal.” 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 255 days

AMRATALAL KARSANDAS SAMANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.463/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Amrutlalkarsandassamani Vs. Principal Commissioner Rest House Road, Of Income Tax, Jodhpur Gate, Jamnagar-361008 Jam Khambhaliya, Dist: Devbhoomi Dwarka-361305. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhps5447P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /02 /2025 : 25 /04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual.In this the assessee has filed return of income on 29/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 19,59,300/- (which includes the amount of Rs 10,06,000/-disclosed during the survey proceedings as unaccounted excess stock

DIVYA DARSHAN ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 150/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Divya Darshan Enterprise Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Block No. 7/8, Meera Nagar, Opp. Circle – 1(1), Rajkot Shashikunj, Gandhipar, B/H. Sardarbaug, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Junagadh – 362001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfd5111A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025

condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “4. Subsequently, Hon'ble Pr. Commission of Income-tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot has vide order u/s 263 of the Act dated 25.02. 2022 alleged that order passed us. 143(3) of the Act dated 22.11.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

SHRI ASHOKBHAI BHAISINH JADEJA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeal, in the interest of justice. 5. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,85,230/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny in order to examine “cash deposit during demonetization

VAGHANI BROTHERS,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), RKT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.159/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vaghani Brothers Vs. The Ito, Ward – 2(1)(1), Rajkot Bus Stand Road, Nr. Buu Stand, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Dhoraji (Guj) - 360410 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfv5533C (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay-application/affidavit. Ld. AR further submitted that the AO has made addition in respect of cash credit in bank a/c during demonetization

SMT. HEENABEN MAHESHBHAI GADHETHARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-3 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2017-18 Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1) Gadhethariya Rajkot. Flat B/21, Copper Elegance Nr.Ambika Township, Mavdi Police Ground Rajkot, Gujarat Pan : Ahwpg 7174 J

condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and proceed to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. The grounds raised in the appeal reads as under: “1. On the facts and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the Assessment Order passed by the ITO u/s 144 despite the Appellant

LALJIBHAI DUDABHAI BHUVA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.501/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual. As per the SFT report, the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.3,56,500/- in his RDCC Bank account no.614049000881 held in Ramod Branch, during Demonetization