KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

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

Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. I.T.A No. 124/Rjt/2016 & 115/A/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Kantilal Babulal Solanki Vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual. For the Asst. Year

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

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

Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. I.T.A No. 124/Rjt/2016 & 115/A/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Kantilal Babulal Solanki Vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual. For the Asst. Year

RAMJIBHAI DEVJIBHAI MOKARIYA,PORBANDAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2(4), PORBANDAR

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

penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued then assessee came to know, therefore, delay\nhas occurred in filing appeal before Tribunal. The appellant prays that the delay\nwas not deliberate and nor was any intention to mislead and was due to\ncircumstances beyond control of the appellant. The appellant therefore prays that\nthe delay in filing appeal