M/S. LAKHANI IMPEX,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, SURAT
In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove
ITA 1648/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2003-04
Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &
115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra).
9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals