SHRI JAYESH CHANDULAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO,WARD-3(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2000-01) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Chandulal Shah, The Ito, Vs. A-74, Saify Society, Near Jain Ward – 3(3)(2), Temple, L. H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. Old Jurisdiction Ito, Ward- 9(2), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adzps8832Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 20.07.2007. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee, for Assessment Year 2000-01, is barred by limitation by 3793 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. To explain, the ITA.50/SRT/2020/AY.2000-01 Jayesh Chandulal Shah delay, the assessee has filed

TIRUPATI SHYAM ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tirupati Shyam Enterprise Nfac, Delhi Current F.P. No. 139 Orleaans, Near Jurisdiction: Dy. Cit Circle- Sosyo Circle Udhna Magadalla Vs. 1(1)(1), Road, Surat-395007. Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aagft 3570 Q Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of seventy-one days in Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 5 Tirupati Shyam Enterprises filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for adjudication on merits. adjudication on merits. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that

BASANT SEKHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

147 of the Act on 28/11/2017. In the quantum assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 55,42,730/- on account of investment in shares and added under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee filed appeal before

BASANT SEKHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

147 of the Act on 28/11/2017. In the quantum assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 55,42,730/- on account of investment in shares and added under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee filed appeal before

BHARATBHAI NAGINBHAI PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(b). 6. The ld Counsel has filed the petition for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons of delay in filing the appeal before NFAC/ld CIT(A), which is reproduced below: “1.Appellant is an agriculturist and has no economic activity or business

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 4. In these appeals the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. We take the “lead case” in ITA No.223/SRT/2018 for AY 2008-09, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1.0 (i) That on the facts

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 4. In these appeals the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. We take the “lead case” in ITA No.223/SRT/2018 for AY 2008-09, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1.0 (i) That on the facts

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 4. In these appeals the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. We take the “lead case” in ITA No.223/SRT/2018 for AY 2008-09, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1.0 (i) That on the facts

BHAVIN ARUNBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 7. At the outset, Shri Mehul Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee, stated that technical issue raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter. The ld Counsel stated that ground No.3 raised by the assessee relates to the fact that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in reopening

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

condone the delay in both appeals of the assessee. 11. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1(in ITA No.628/SRT/2023), therefore, I dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as “not pressed”. 12. Now, I take ground

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

condone the delay in both appeals of the assessee. 11. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1(in ITA No.628/SRT/2023), therefore, I dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as “not pressed”. 12. Now, I take ground

BACHRAJ CHHOTELAL MEHTA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Bachraj Chhotelal Mehta, Ito Ward-2(3)(8), C-3, 3Rd Floor, Antwerp Park, 619, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Apartment, Kansara Sheri, Vs. Gate, Mahidharpura, Surat-395001. Surat-395003. Pan No. Afrpm 7809 R Appellant Respondent

147 dated 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 had not been passed in my name and under my had not been passed in my name and under my PAN, however had been passed in name of a non PAN, however had been passed in name of a non PAN, however had been passed in name of a non-existent entity named 'M/s. Vitrag Enterprises

SHRI MANSUKH K. VAGHASIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1070/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mansukh K. Vaghasia, Surat Vs. The Ito, Ward-8(3), C-1-102, Subham Residency, B/H Surat. Natvar Nagar, Nana Varachha, Surat-395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acjpv4517A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 18.03.2013. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condone these minor delays in filing appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. We note that most

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condone these minor delays in filing appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. We note that most

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condone these minor delays in filing appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. We note that most

JANVI THREAD PRIVATE LIMTED,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT

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

condoning the delay of 172 days, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 2000/- per appeal due to non-compliance before the lower authorities.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 147

THAKORBHAI CHHAGANBHAI MORI,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 338 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee