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)

144 of the I.T.Act, 1961 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 1961 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed

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

HARUNBHAI NOORMAMD JINDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(7), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 407/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Harunbhai Noormamd Jindani The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(7), Kishan Chowk, Behind Bodyg, Vs. Jamnagar-Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar - 361001 Jamnagar-361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxpj4114C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 Order 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 20.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 Of The Act, On 11.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

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 20.09.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 of the Act, on 11.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows

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)

144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay and I find that

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)

144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay and I find that

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)

144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay and I find that

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)

144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay and I find that

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:

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963, in order to enable the Courts to do Page 2 of 8 Hothi Samat Keshwala substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. In Ramlal, & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [(1962) 2 SCR 762], it was laid down that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay

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

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 05.02.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147of the Act on 22.11.2018. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 346 days

VINODBHAI RAVJIBHAI SAKHIYA,RAJKOT vs. 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.182/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vinod Ravjibhai Sakhiya, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Shivam, 4-Radha Nagar, B/H. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360 004 Bhavan, Race Course, Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Blqps 0262 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

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 28.12.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, on 06.12.2018. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee, before the Tribunal is barred

RAJENDRASINH RANJITSINH JADEJA,KHAKHADABELA,PADDHARI vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, 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 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

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 26/07/2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 25/11/2009 u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

SAMIR VINODRAY MAKWANA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Asstt. Year: (2010-11) Shri Samir Vinodray Makwana Income Tax Officer, Ward- Khodpara Main Road, Street 1(2)(3), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Noo.D13, Jetpur, Dit. Rajkot-360 370 Bhavan, Race Course Ring Pan : Aiapm 7196 H Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 5. On merit, at the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended

AKHUBHAI KATHALBHAI KHUMAN,AT NANA LILIYA, TALUKA MOTA LILIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 305/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Akhubhai Kathalbhai Khuman, Vs. Ito, Nanaliliya Mota Lilya, Ward-3(1)(4), Amreli-365601 Amreli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bbcpk2506F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

144 of the Act, dated 08.12.2017. I.T.A No. 305/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Akhubhai Kathalbhai Khuman 2. The appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14, is barred by limitation by 351 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that assessee

AMITKUMAR RAMKISHORBHAI SHARMA,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, MORBI

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

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act is bad in law. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay

JYOTIBEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH,PORBANDAR vs. ITO, W-2(3), PORBANDAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.184/Rjt/2024

144 of the income tax act, 1961 was passed in the case of my deceased mother Jyotiben R Shah on 21/10/2019. The same was served to our family member_on_29/10/2019. My mother heavenly passed away on 09/09/2019. The assessment order was passed after her death. My mother did not left any major asset after her death. Under the circumstances

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

In the result, grounds of

144 of the Act and passed assessment order on 24.12.2019. The delay for 872 days has occurred in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) because notices were issued by the Assessing Officer who was not jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and the Chartered Accountant (CA) who was responsible to handle the appeal of the assessee was not aware about the jurisdictional

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)

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). 1 I.T.A Nos. 275/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Kumar Vanjani vs. ITO 2. The appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18, is barred by limitation by 29 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have gone through the petition