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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay.\n7. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is a\nprivate limited company.The assessee- company had filed return of income for\nthe assessment year (AY) 2017-18, on 13/10/2017, declaring total loss of\nRs.2,36,06,293/-. The assessee`s case was selected for Scrutiny through CASS.\nThe assessment was finalized

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)

section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee was badly engaged for medical treatment of his parents who were aged old. The Ld. Counsel stated that assessee was in mental

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

3. The above stated order and notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued online through ITBA Portal, on an e-mail address "jaykamdar80@gmail. mail address "jaykamdar80@gmail.com". The said e com". The said e-mail address belonging to partner Jay Kamdar. On receipt of the same he forwarded the address belonging to partner Jay Kamdar. On receipt of the same

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

3. The above stated order and notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued online through ITBA Portal, on an e-mail address "jaykamdar80@gmail. mail address "jaykamdar80@gmail.com". The said e com". The said e-mail address belonging to partner Jay Kamdar. On receipt of the same he forwarded the address belonging to partner Jay Kamdar. On receipt of the same

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

3. The above stated order and notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued online through ITBA Portal, on an e-mail address "jaykamdar80@gmail. mail address "jaykamdar80@gmail.com". The said e com". The said e-mail address belonging to partner Jay Kamdar. On receipt of the same he forwarded the address belonging to partner Jay Kamdar. On receipt of the same

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

3. The above stated order and notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued online through ITBA Portal, on an e-mail address "jaykamdar80@gmail. mail address "jaykamdar80@gmail.com". The said e com". The said e-mail address belonging to partner Jay Kamdar. On receipt of the same he forwarded the address belonging to partner Jay Kamdar. On receipt of the same

SHIVEN CERAMIC LLP,MORBI vs. ITO, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT, DELHI, DELHI

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.392/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S Shiven Ceramic Llp, बनाम Income Tax Officer National E-Assessment Centre, /Vs. 604/P5, 642/P1, Village Delhi Ghnutu, Lakhdhirpur Nr. Royal Touch Vitrified, Morbi-360 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adifs 8442 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that in an appeal filed, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, who has, vide order

CHINTAN DWARKADAS CHOTAI,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1), RKT, RAJKOT

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

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

delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is condoned. We find that section 253(3) of the Act empowers

SHRI SALIMBHAI SATARBHAI GAJIYANI,MALIYA HATINA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO WARD 2, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं /.Ita No.881/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Salimbhai Satarbhai Gajiyani Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Prop. Of Raj Enterprise Jungadh. Opp: High School Vs. Station Road, Malia Hatina Junagadh. Pan : Afppg 1405 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

condone the delay if a litigant satisfied the Court that there were sufficient reasons for availing the remedy after expiry of the limitation. Such reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression "sufficient cause or reason" as Shri SalimbhiaSatarbhiaGajiyani Vs. ITO 3 provided in sub-section (5) of section 253

DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,JUNAGADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JUNAGADH

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. 239/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2008-09) बनाम Damjibhai Lekharjibhai Thavrani Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Vs. Ito Ward – 1 Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Opp. Income Tax Office, Bhootnath Rajkumar College, Chamber, Rajkot 360001 Junagadh – 362001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aeypt7701B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 55 days in terms of provisions of section 253

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)

section 253(3) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) filed an application for condonation of delay supported

SHRI NARENDRA DHARAMDAS GIDWANI,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ADDL. CIT, NFAC, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Plot No. 29, Survey No. 193/1, Maitru Tax(Appeals), Residency Meghpar Borichi, Anjar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Kutch, (Nfac), Delhi, Income Tax Gujarat - 370110 Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpg6386M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. M. Sinha, Jm:

Section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order. The limitation period of 60 days expired on June 3, 2023. Thus, there is delay of only 29 days in filing Appeal by the Applicant which may kindly be condoned

MATEL HARDWARE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 3(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 204/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Matel Hardware Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shrddha Park Street No.2, Shrddha 3(1)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar बनाम Park Main Road, Ram Chowk, Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 /Vs. Rajkot-360002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazfm6158L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee was suffering severe chest pain and was badly engaged for his medical treatment ( relevant medical papers have been submitted before the Bench

BHAVESH ISHWARLAL PANCHASARA,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

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.95/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Bhavesh Ishwarlal बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Panchasara Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot /Vs. 1, Mehulnagar Main Road, Near Khodiyar Temple, Rajkot-360 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aodpp 1375 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee received the order of Ld. CIT(A) on 03.11.2023 and stipulated period to file appeal before Tribunal was on or before

SHRI BHARATBHAI RAYSINH VALA,DEVALI DEDA, KODINAR, DIST. JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), AMRELI, AMRELI

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

3. That I was entirely unaware of the statutory requirements related to\nmaintaining books of accounts, filing income tax returns and tax audit\ncompliance. Due to my lack of formal education and knowledge of tax laws, I did\nnot file an income tax return for the A.Y. 2018-19.\n4. That as a consequence of non-filing, the Assessing Officer

SMT. SHEETAL RASHMIN PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE I. T. O. WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "143(3)", "142A", "143(2)", "142(1)", "56(2)(b)", "2(22B)", "55(2)(b)(i)", "194B", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable

SHRI RAMNIKLAL HIRJI PATEL,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2, BHUJ, BHUJ-KUTCH

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

condonation, supported by Supreme Court precedent. The Tribunal also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act and had passed an ex-parte order.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "143(3)", "147", "50C", "253(5)", "250(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay

SEASTEM LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT CIR - 1,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 334/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Seastem Limited, Jamnagar Vs. Acit, Cir-1, Jamnagar 1 Avani Appartment, - Sarusection Road Income Tax Office, Jamnagar – 361001 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahcs9428G (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 : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

3. Your honour may kindly appreciate that there was no ill motive behind not filling appeal in time. 4. This being meritorious case, we kindly request your honour to condonation delay in filing appeal and decide the case on merits.” 7. During the Course of hearing of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not having knowledge