MAYURBHAI HIRABHAI SINDHAV ( MALDHARI),RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT

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

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

delay caused by the period between the last of the dates of limitation and the date on which the appeal/application is actually filed. What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules. 10. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Shanti Misra [AIR 1976 SC 237], Supreme Court held that discretion given by Section 5

MAYURBHAI HIRABHAI SINDHAV (MALDHARI),RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT

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

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

delay caused by the period between the last of the dates of limitation and the date on which the appeal/application is actually filed. What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules. 10. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Shanti Misra [AIR 1976 SC 237], Supreme Court held that discretion given by Section 5

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 3. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the issue involved in the appeal of the assessee is that assessee had received interest on enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,51,082/- on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, which is exempted under section 10(37) of the Income tax Act 1961. However, assessing officer

KHADAKALA SEVA SAHKARI MANADLI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.199/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2018-19 Khadakala Seva Sahkari Mandali Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Savarkundla, Amreli, 364515 Gujarat - 365650 Vs [C/O. D. R. Adhia Om Shri Padamlaya, Near Trikamrayji Haweli, 16- Jagnath Plot, Dr. Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001] "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabak3647B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 20.10.2023, which in turn arises out of an intimation order passed by CPC, Bengaluru / Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 25.06.2019. Khadakala Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. ITO Grounds

SHRI SHARDAGRAM ALUMNI EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

delay has been condoned in filing application under clause-(iii) of 3rd proviso to sub-section-5 of Section 80G of the Act. The findings of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Vananchal Kelavani Trust (supra), are reproduced below: "13. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case

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

section 271(1) (C ) of the Act. Shri Anish Hasan Bakhai ITA No.132 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2017-18) 2 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 442/RJT/2024 [u/s. 271(1)(c) Penalty Appeal) for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 214 days, before this Tribunal. The assessee moved a petition requesting the Bench

SAILESHKUMAR 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

section 271(1) (C ) of the Act. Shri Anish Hasan Bakhai ITA No.132 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2017-18) 2 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 442/RJT/2024 [u/s. 271(1)(c) Penalty Appeal) for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 214 days, before this Tribunal. The assessee moved a petition requesting the Bench

KANATALAW SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 15.03.2024 & 13.06.2024, which in turn arise out of intimation orders passed by CPC, Bengaluru / Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 25.06.2019 & 01.05.2020; respectively. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.200/Rjt/2025

KANATALAW SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 15.03.2024 & 13.06.2024, which in turn arise out of intimation orders passed by CPC, Bengaluru / Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 25.06.2019 & 01.05.2020; respectively. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.200/Rjt/2025

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

5. Therefore, ld.PCIT noted that above facts are sufficient to reach to a conclusion that the assessing officer has passed the assessment order without making proper enquiry and verification on the above issue. It is thus, apparent that the order passed by the assessing officer in assessee’s case for assessment year (AY) 2018-19, u/s 143(3) r.w.s

KANTABEN RAMNIKLAL NAGDA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 50C is not applicable. 5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming by making addition of Rs. 3,06,284/- u/s 68 for agricultural income disclosed by appellant for want of supporting documents. 6. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming addition of Rs. 10

JITESHBHAI RAMNIKLAL NAGADA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 50C is not applicable. 5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming by making addition of Rs. 3,06,284/- u/s 68 for agricultural income disclosed by appellant for want of supporting documents. 6. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming addition of Rs. 10

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. We note that medical ground is a sufficient cause to condone delay.We note that the reasons given

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. We note that medical ground is a sufficient cause to condone delay.We note that the reasons given

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

5 used to look the taxation matters of the entire group, was feeling severe illness and eventually he died, is not a ‘sufficient cause’, to condone such delay, therefore, the delay should not be condoned and these appeals of the assessees should be dismissed. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that these three

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

5 used to look the taxation matters of the entire group, was feeling severe illness and eventually he died, is not a ‘sufficient cause’, to condone such delay, therefore, the delay should not be condoned and these appeals of the assessees should be dismissed. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that these three

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

condone the delay in both appeals and admit these appeals for hearing. 7. In both these appeals, the assessee has raised the grounds pertaining to technical issue, being notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is time barred. When these cases were called for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration, in both appeals

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

condone the delay in both appeals and admit these appeals for hearing. 7. In both these appeals, the assessee has raised the grounds pertaining to technical issue, being notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is time barred. When these cases were called for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration, in both appeals