JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

condone the delay in both appeals and admit these appeals for hearing. 7. In both these appeals, the assessee has raised the grounds pertaining to technical issue, being notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is time barred. When these cases were called for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration, in both appeals

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

condone the delay in both appeals and admit these appeals for hearing. 7. In both these appeals, the assessee has raised the grounds pertaining to technical issue, being notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is time barred. When these cases were called for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration, in both appeals

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

condone the delay. 7. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is a private limited company.The assessee- company had filed return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18, on 13/10/2017, declaring total loss of Rs.2,36,06,293/-. The assessee`s case was selected for Scrutiny through CASS. The assessment was finalized

VIPUL ARJANBHAI PARMAR,MANGROL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.217/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 बनाम/ Vipul Arjanbhai Parmar Income Tax Officer Vs C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar, Ward – 1, Junagadh 1St Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ditpp9286B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

condone the delay. 8. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, on merit, are as follows: “1. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad in law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts for making the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-on account of unexplained

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:

condoned the delay. Narendra D. Gidwani 7. Brief facts of the case that the Appellant is on individual assessee employed with the private company. The Appellant is a salaried person and have been filing return of income regularly. The appellant filed return of income for assessment year 2015-16 on September 4, 2015. Thereafter, the assessing officer issued Notice under

SHREE JAMNAGAR JILLA SAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT-CIR-2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.223/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

condone the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). 6. On merit, I note that while passing assessment order, the AO made addition of Rs.12,31,766/- on account of 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by this Division Bench of this Tribunal

ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

1 Rajkot has grievously erred in disallowing the expenses of Rs 155800/- without considering the proviso to section 12A(2)-(INSERTED BY THE FINANCE NO.2, 2014 W.e.f. 01/10/2014). Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the at time of passing the order u/s 263 by learned CIT I, proviso to section 12A was not existed

ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

1 Rajkot has grievously erred in disallowing the expenses of Rs 155800/- without considering the proviso to section 12A(2)-(INSERTED BY THE FINANCE NO.2, 2014 W.e.f. 01/10/2014). Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the at time of passing the order u/s 263 by learned CIT I, proviso to section 12A was not existed

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)

section 139 of the Act is condoned (ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form No. 10B for years prior to AY. 2018-19, The commissioner of Income-tax are authorized to admit and dispose of by 31-3-2020 such applications for condonation of delay u's 119(2)(b) of the Act The Commissioner will

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

delay is condoned in filing the appeal. 6.Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee has e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring total income of Rs.2,41,110/- and agriculture income of Rs.5,60,400/- on 18.03.2018. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1.T. Act, accepting

M/S. KANDLA ENERGY AND CHEMICALS LTD.,VILLAGE DEVALIYA, TAL. ANJAR(KUTCH) vs. ADD. CIT, GANDHIDHAM RANGE,, GANDHIDHAM(KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

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

31-10-2017. After receipt of the TPO’s order, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order dated 15-11- 2017 u/s. 144C(1) of the Act and duly served on the assessee on 16-11-2017. 3.1. As per Section 144C(2) of the Act, within 30 days of the receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee

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)

section 272A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the statutory notices issued u/s. 131(1A) of the Act. 7.1. Here also, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by Ld. NFAC on the ground of 13 days delay in filing the appeal, where

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)

section 272A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the statutory notices issued u/s. 131(1A) of the Act. 7.1. Here also, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by Ld. NFAC on the ground of 13 days delay in filing the appeal, where