MAYURBHAI HIRABHAI SINDHAV (MALDHARI),RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT

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

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

3 of 14 ITA No. 570&571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay 12. The courts and tribunals have consistently held that in the matter of condonation of delay, a pragmatic and liberal approach should be taken. The Supreme Court also held the same in the case of Investment Trust v. Ujagarsingh that unless mala fides or gross negligence is evident, delays should

MAYURBHAI HIRABHAI SINDHAV ( MALDHARI),RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT

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

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

3 of 14 ITA No. 570&571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay 12. The courts and tribunals have consistently held that in the matter of condonation of delay, a pragmatic and liberal approach should be taken. The Supreme Court also held the same in the case of Investment Trust v. Ujagarsingh that unless mala fides or gross negligence is evident, delays should

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

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

Section\n5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be\nrefused to be condoned.\nIn Smt. Milavi Devi v. Dina Nath [(1982) 3

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

section 263 of the Act, is an appealable order\nbefore the ITAT (Tribunal). Therefore, because of the mistake of the tax\nconsultant of the assessee, the delay of 331 days in filing the appeal before this\nTribunal has caused, for that assessee should not be penalized. Therefore, Ld.\nCounsel contended that delay of 331 days in filing, the appeal

KHADAKALA SEVA SAHKARI MANADLI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.199/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2018-19 Khadakala Seva Sahkari Mandali Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Savarkundla, Amreli, 364515 Gujarat - 365650 Vs [C/O. D. R. Adhia Om Shri Padamlaya, Near Trikamrayji Haweli, 16- Jagnath Plot, Dr. Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001] "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabak3647B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M:

delay may not be condoned and appeal of Assesee may be dismissed. 2. Without prejudice to above, brief submissions on merit are as under: a) It is undisputed that ROI of subject AY 2018-19 was not filed by Assesee within due date. b) As per section 80AC of chapter VIA of income tax act applicable from

OM CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Section 5 is proved, the\napplication must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.\nIn Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi &Ors. [(1979) 3

SAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

3) and penalty order under section 271(1) (C ) of the Act. Shri Anish Hasan Bakhai ITA No.132 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2017-18) 2 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 442/RJT/2024 [u/s. 271(1)(c) Penalty Appeal) for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 214 days, before this Tribunal. The assessee moved

SHAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

3) and penalty order under section 271(1) (C ) of the Act. Shri Anish Hasan Bakhai ITA No.132 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2017-18) 2 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 442/RJT/2024 [u/s. 271(1)(c) Penalty Appeal) for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 214 days, before this Tribunal. The assessee moved

SHRI SHARDAGRAM ALUMNI EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes, in above terms

section 5 of\nthe Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to\nparties by disposing of matters on the merits\". The expression \"sufficient cause\"\nemployed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the\nlaw in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

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

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)

section 249(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirm That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. CIT(A) ha That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

3,500/- for the use of land from the assessee-trust. This agreement\naims to ensure that the gaushala can operate without incurring rental cost,\nwhich is beneficial for the financial sustainability of the charitable activities of\nthe assessee- trust. It is also stated by CIT (E) in the order vide para 8.1 that it\nhas also not clarified that

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing)

3. The assessee craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 15. Brief of the case is that the assessee has filed the application in Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, for approval under section u/s 80G(5)(iii)of the Act, however, ld. CIT( E) rejected the assessee`s application

JITESHBHAI RAMNIKLAL NAGADA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 50C is not applicable. 5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming by making addition of Rs. 3,06,284/- u/s 68 for agricultural income disclosed by appellant for want of supporting documents. 6. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming addition

KANTABEN RAMNIKLAL NAGDA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 50C is not applicable. 5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming by making addition of Rs. 3,06,284/- u/s 68 for agricultural income disclosed by appellant for want of supporting documents. 6. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming addition

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also 119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also 119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding

SURENDRABA RAGHUVIRSINH CHUDASAMA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 384 days. The assessee moved an application for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, has explained the reasons for delay stating that in the assessee`s case, the appellate order under section