SHAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal in case of quantum proceedings, in ITA No. 441/Rjt/2024 and 214 days delay in filing the appeal in ITA No. 442/Rjt/2024 ( penalty

ARJAN LILA GORANIYA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.378/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Arjan Lila Goraniya Vs. Ito Ward 2 (4), Inajiya Vadi Vistar, Porbandar - 360575 Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ ./Pan/Gir No.: Bbwpg1554P (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and bad-in-law. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T.Act

BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,ANJAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.418 & 388/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) Pan : Apepr3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

condonation of delay are similar and identical in both appeals. The Ld Counsel for the assessee explained the reasons of delay in both these appeals stating that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC had passed order u/s 250 for A.Y. 2009-10 on 29/09/2022 confirming penalty

SHRI BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,VILLAGE MEGHPAR, TAL. ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.418 & 388/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) Pan : Apepr3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

condonation of delay are similar and identical in both appeals. The Ld Counsel for the assessee explained the reasons of delay in both these appeals stating that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC had passed order u/s 250 for A.Y. 2009-10 on 29/09/2022 confirming penalty

SURENDRABA RAGHUVIRSINH CHUDASAMA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

condone the delay. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, has explained the reasons for delay stating that in the assessee`s case, the appellate order under section 250 of the Income tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13 has been passed on 19th September 2023. In view of the same, the present appeal ought to have been filed

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty appeals were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty appeals were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty appeals were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty appeals were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay

NILESH ASHANAND THACKER,BHUJ vs. ITO WARD 4, GANDHIDHAM (BHUJ)

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in- law. That the appellant craves leave

OM CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Om Ceramics Industries Ito, Wd – 1, Anand Nagar, 8-A, National Highway, Wankaner, Vs. Morbi – 363642 Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpo6588L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone the delay of 87 days. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 4. The assessee`s appeal in ITA 492/Rjt/2025 pertains to penalty

OM CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Om Ceramics Industries Ito, Wd – 1, Anand Nagar, 8-A, National Highway, Wankaner, Vs. Morbi – 363642 Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpo6588L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone the delay of 87 days. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 4. The assessee`s appeal in ITA 492/Rjt/2025 pertains to penalty

SAVAN KISHORKUMAR KANANI,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DWARKA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.277/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12

condoning the delay are reproduced below: ITA No. 277/Rjt/2025 A.Y 11-12 Savan K Kanani “1. In this case the appellate order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2011-112 has been passed on 5th February, 2024. 2. In view of the same the present appeal ought to have been filed before Hon’ble Income

SHABBIR SAIFUDDIN MAKATI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.419/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shabbir Safuddini Makati बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), Jamnagar, Aaykar /Vs. C-2/333, Gidc, Shankar Bhwan, Jamnagar-361 004 Tekari, Udyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdpm8899E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay or default for hearing, default may be condoned and penalty to be deleted. 4. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

condone the delay. 7. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is a private limited company.The assessee- company had filed return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18, on 13/10/2017, declaring total loss of Rs.2,36,06,293/-. The assessee`s case was selected for Scrutiny through CASS. The assessment was finalized

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

condoned the delay in filing appeal by 1444 days. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed return of Income on 30-03-2016 showing NIL income. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny and the assessment was completed by the AO and remaining income after claim of deduction

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that order passed by the CIT(A) never reached to the assessee because the online portal displays E-mail Address and Mobile Number which belonged to the "Tax Return Preparer, who did not inform to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee received physically penalty

SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ACIT, WARD-2 (4), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

delay in filing this penalty appeal is also similar, we condone the delay of 13 days in filing this appeal

SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

delay in filing this penalty appeal is also similar, we condone the delay of 13 days in filing this appeal