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.

delay was occasioned otherwise than a bona fide conduct, then the FAA should lean against acceptance of the explanation. (iv) Section 249(3) of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation

PRATIBHABEN ASHOKKUMAR DAVE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Pratibhaben Ashokumar Dave The Ito, Ward-3(1) Rajkot. “Shiv Urja”, 12-Bhaktinagar Society Vs. Dhebar Road Rajkot. (Applicant) (Responent)

249 of Income Tax Act provides powers to the ld.Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. De hores sufficient explanation, authority cannot simply condone the delay, otherwise provision of section

SHREE PIPARDI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 448/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20)

delay before filing Ld.CIT(A) who has not admitted the appeal with the provisions of Section 249(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone

RAMJIBHAI DEVJIBHAI MOKARIYA,PORBANDAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2(4), PORBANDAR

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

section 249(2)(c) of the Act. On merit, the ld CIT(A) also\nheld that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeal. Resultantly,\nunadmitted the appeal u/s 249(2)(c) and confirmed the addition made by\nAssessing Officer as there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay

MOTA DADVA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHKARI,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.37 & 38/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mota Dadva Mahila Utpadak Sahakari The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) बनाम At Mota Dadva, Gondal, Rajkot Rajkot Gujarat-360311 Vs. Pan : Aakfm7170M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-Dr

delay is condoned in filing both these appeals. 5. On merit, At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing out that assessee has not attended the proceedings before the assessing officer and before learned CIT(A), as the assessee is uneducated and reside in remote area, where internet facility is not available, therefore, notices of hearing were

MOTA DADVA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHKARI,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.37 & 38/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mota Dadva Mahila Utpadak Sahakari The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) बनाम At Mota Dadva, Gondal, Rajkot Rajkot Gujarat-360311 Vs. Pan : Aakfm7170M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-Dr

delay is condoned in filing both these appeals. 5. On merit, At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing out that assessee has not attended the proceedings before the assessing officer and before learned CIT(A), as the assessee is uneducated and reside in remote area, where internet facility is not available, therefore, notices of hearing were

BHAVESHKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI MANIYAR,JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, JUNAGADH., JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Saini, Accountat Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.234/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) Bhavneshkumar Mahendrabhai Vs. Ito, Maniyar, Ward – 1, Prop.Of Shree Hari Enterprise, Junagadh Shop No.2, Rajkamal Apartment, Junagadh, Junagadh - 362001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afdpm3866Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

249 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) filed an application for condonation of delay

SHREE PINDARA SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,DEVBHUMI DWARKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (W), DWARKA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.404/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shree Pindara Seva Sahkari Mandali Income Tax Officer, Wd-1, बनाम Ltd. At Pindara, Taluka Kalyanpur, Dwarka-361335 Devbhumi Dwarka (Guj) -361315 Vs. Pan No. : Aajas7145N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Shreyash Sheth, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16/01/2026 Order Per, Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

condonation of delay: "On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249

LATE ARJAN KANJI PUJARA SMARK CHARITABLE TRUST BHACHAU,BHACHAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

condoning the delay of 852 days as no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee u/s. 249(3) of the Act. 2.1. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant is a Charitable Trust duly registered under section

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

condonation of the delay. 6. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that the ld.CIT(A) not admitted appeal section 249

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 the appeals may kindly be condoned and the same may please be admitted and decided on merits by exercising of Your Honour's powers vide provisions of section 249

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 the appeals may kindly be condoned and the same may please be admitted and decided on merits by exercising of Your Honour's powers vide provisions of section 249

POOJA OMPRAKASH NAWANI,ADIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.876/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Pooja Omprakash Nawani Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Flat-5 Nirav Appartment, Plot-358 Ito Ward – 2, Ward-2B, Gandhidham - 370205 Adipur 370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acfpn4546H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08 / 07 /2025

condonation of delay. Hence the limitation in filing the appeal as prescribed under section 249 is not comply with by the assessee

SHRI ASHWINKUMAR C. ZALA,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Appellate Commissioner With Effect From 01-03-2016, For All Persons Who Are Required To Furnish Their Return Of Income Electronically. Though The Assessee Vide Its Letter Dated 13-05- 2017 Explained He Already Filed Online Appeal Under Rule 45 On 01- 05-2017 With Acknowledgement No. 766897990010507. Due To Technical Reason That His Aadhar Was Not Able To Match Pan Data. There Was Technical Delay In Online Filing & Requested To Condone The Same. Though The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Extracted The Above Letter Of The Assessee In This Impugned Order, But Simply Dismissed The Appeal In Limine.

section 249(3) in our reply dated 13-05-2017, reasons to file electronically late for technical reason. 7. At the time of submission of my appeal (paper form) I inform to respondent personally that I don't have aadhar card so electronically submission would be delayed so I file physically in advance so Respondent may grant condone