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

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

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

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

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

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

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

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

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

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, is used in identical position in the Limitation Act. The expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as similar other provisions, the ambit of exercise of powers thereunder have been subject-matter of consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on various occasions. In the case

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

section 253(5), and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take judicious view and condoned the delay in this file. We further note that the assessee deserve an opportunity to explain the case before lower authorities. We set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh

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)

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 suffered severe chest pain and was badly engaged for his medical treatment. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the medical

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

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 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

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:

delay of only 29 days in filing Appeal by the Applicant which may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6

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:

6. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 381 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal alongwith Affidavit in support of the application. The relevant part of the application for delay is as under; “1. Your honour may kindly appreciate that hon. CIT(A), NFAC

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(5) of the Act is sufficiently elastic to enable the Tribunal to apply the law which subserves the ends of justice. It has been held in a number of cases that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim

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

6.\nRs. 4,16,746/-\nTotal income.\ni.e. say.\nRs. 18,16,776/-\nRs. 18,16,780/-\n8. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld.AO, dated\n18.12.2009 before the Ld. CIT(A). that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal\nof the assessee with following remarks;\n“I have already held in ground

ANIMAL LOVERS CHARITABLE TRUST,JAMNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.157/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: N.A Animal Lovers Charitable Trust Commissioner Of Income-Tax C.A Govind Sonecha, “S & A Vs. (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Room Houe”, Near Golen City, 80Ft Roa, No.609, Floor-6, Aayakar Bhawan Khodiyar Colony, B/H Saru Section (Vejalpur), Near Sachin Tower, 100 Police Headquarters, Foot Road, Anandnagar- Jamnagar-360 510 Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-380 -015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajta 1250 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is delayed by by 136 136 days. As the order is time barred for filing Form 36 we hereby request your good-self to kindly condone the delay in filing appeal and accept Form 36 attached herewith. I also declare that the above particulars are true to the best

VAGHANI BROTHERS,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), RKT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.159/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vaghani Brothers Vs. The Ito, Ward – 2(1)(1), Rajkot Bus Stand Road, Nr. Buu Stand, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Dhoraji (Guj) - 360410 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfv5533C (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. We have considered the submissions made by Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and in the absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a "sufficient cause" for delay in filing present appeal as stated above in foregoing para. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT

BILIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,MORBI, RAJKOT vs. ITO WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 742/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Limited Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, National At. Biliya, Tal. Morbi, Gujarat, Highway-8-A, At- Lalpar, Morvi 363641 (Gujarat) Morbi 363642 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabab3498H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing the appeal. At the same time, as agreed by both sides and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit and condone the delay of 100 days and appeal is heard