AIRLINK COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASST./ DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE TDS, , SURAT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.53 To 57/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Airlink Communication Pvt. Ltd. Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Tds, Aaykar Bhavan, 1-2, Annapurna Shopping Centre, Vs. Surat-395001 1St Floor Aadajan Patia, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaufr 6898 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 12. Therefore, by following the binding precedent of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in suo-motu Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 (supra), we condone

AIRLINK COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASST./ DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE TDS, , SURAT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.53 To 57/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Airlink Communication Pvt. Ltd. Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Tds, Aaykar Bhavan, 1-2, Annapurna Shopping Centre, Vs. Surat-395001 1St Floor Aadajan Patia, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaufr 6898 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 12. Therefore, by following the binding precedent of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in suo-motu Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 (supra), we condone

AIRLINK COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASST./ DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE TDS, , SURAT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.53 To 57/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Airlink Communication Pvt. Ltd. Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Tds, Aaykar Bhavan, 1-2, Annapurna Shopping Centre, Vs. Surat-395001 1St Floor Aadajan Patia, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaufr 6898 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 12. Therefore, by following the binding precedent of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in suo-motu Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 (supra), we condone

AIRLINK COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.53 To 57/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Airlink Communication Pvt. Ltd. Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Tds, Aaykar Bhavan, 1-2, Annapurna Shopping Centre, Vs. Surat-395001 1St Floor Aadajan Patia, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaufr 6898 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 12. Therefore, by following the binding precedent of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in suo-motu Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 (supra), we condone

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

156 had been passed in name of a non-existent entity existent entity viz. 'M/s. Vitrag Enterprises' on disclosing the status as viz. 'M/s. Vitrag Enterprises' on disclosing the status as viz. 'M/s. Vitrag Enterprises' on disclosing the status as 'Firm' and disclosing the PAN number as 'No PAN'; nd disclosing the PAN number as 'No PAN'; 4.0 On facts

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025

MOGAR PARTAPORE VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

156 taxmann.com 361 (Madras)[21-09-2023], the High ITA Nos. 221/Srt/2024 & 96/Srt/2025 Runi Impex vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2012-13 - 7– Court held that where assessee had not given 'sufficient cause' for condoning huge delay of 1072 days in filing appeal, delay could not be condoned. 11. Accordingly, looking into the assessee’s set of facts as highlighted above

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

156 taxmann.com 361 (Madras)[21-09-2023], the High ITA Nos. 221/Srt/2024 & 96/Srt/2025 Runi Impex vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2012-13 - 7– Court held that where assessee had not given 'sufficient cause' for condoning huge delay of 1072 days in filing appeal, delay could not be condoned. 11. Accordingly, looking into the assessee’s set of facts as highlighted above

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI KALUBHAI MIYANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., A/31, 32 Ramdevpir Nagar, Ward 3(3)(2), Vs. Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aempm 3134 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., 83, Shirdidham Society, Hira Ward 3(3)(5), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ablpp 5096 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condonation of delay. In the application, the assessee/applicant contended that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 20/09/2017 was served upon the assessee on 27/10/2017 and as such, the time limit for filing appeal was up to 25/12/2017. After the order of ld. CIT(A), the order giving effect and demand notice under Section 156

SHRI LALJIBHAI KALUBHAI MIYANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., A/31, 32 Ramdevpir Nagar, Ward 3(3)(2), Vs. Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aempm 3134 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., 83, Shirdidham Society, Hira Ward 3(3)(5), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ablpp 5096 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condonation of delay. In the application, the assessee/applicant contended that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 20/09/2017 was served upon the assessee on 27/10/2017 and as such, the time limit for filing appeal was up to 25/12/2017. After the order of ld. CIT(A), the order giving effect and demand notice under Section 156

SHRI SUDIN MAHADEV SANGODKAR,GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Sudin Mahadev Sangodkar, I.T.O., House No. 46B, 1/5 Next To Fab Ward-Daman Vs. India, Alta Mapusa, Bardez, Daman. North Goa, Goa-403507. Ph.9423530599 Email: Smsangodcar@Gmail.Com Pan No. Ajjps 0830 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condonation of delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) and other evidence to show that the assessee was not served with the notice under section 274/ 271(1)(c) as well as notice under section 156

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

156 of 2021 and other similar matters, it is seen that the Commissioner has disclosed to the assessee as to why in his case the power under Section 263 has to be invoked. On reading of the orders passed 14 ITA Nos.552 & 882/SRT/2024 (A.Y.11-12) Rambilash R Jajoo & Sunita Jajoo by the Commissioner, we find that the order

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navsari Malesar Behdin Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward, Room Anjuman, Agary Street, Vs No.105, 1St Floor, Anavil Malesar, Business Centre, Aayakar Navsari-396445 Bhavan, Adajan Hazira Road, Pan No. Aaatn 6124 C Adajan, Surat-395007 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

section 156 was ever sent on the said registered e-mail of assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that he has already filed screenshot of the inbox of email of omconsultancy1963@yahoo.com at page No.26-28 3 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman of paper book. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee was contesting all proceedings, either in quantum

KISHOR RAMESHBHAI MEHTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

156/-.Late payment of EPF added u/s 2(24) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.96,441/- disallowance