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.

249(3) of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right, but has to satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. (v) Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused, cannot

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

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(2

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)

2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is whether the Ld. NFAC right in not 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

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

2 assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that notice were not served on the assessee and the tax consultant of the assessee, did not inform to the assessee, about passing the appellate order, therefore, because of the mistake of the tax consultant, the delay has occurred in filing these both appeals, which may be condoned in the interest

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

2 assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that notice were not served on the assessee and the tax consultant of the assessee, did not inform to the assessee, about passing the appellate order, therefore, because of the mistake of the tax consultant, the delay has occurred in filing these both appeals, which may be condoned in the interest

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)

2. The appeal filed by assessee is barred by limitation of 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

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

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 29.01.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act on 09.11.2019. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 346 days

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)

2. The assessee’s main grievance is that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee who failed to condone the delay of 13 days in filing the above appeal and thereby merits of the case were not adjudicated. 2.1. The assessee’s prayer for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC

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)

2. The assessee’s main grievance is that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee who failed to condone the delay of 13 days in filing the above appeal and thereby merits of the case were not adjudicated. 2.1. The assessee’s prayer for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC

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

section 249 has not been considered. There is contradictions in between two Fact in case the notice of hearing u/s. 250 of the act issued meaning thereby the appeal has been admitted for hearing. We further note that the Ld. CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeal on merit u/s. 250 of the Act. In view of the above

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 for delay