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

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed

SNP MERCHANT PVT.LTD, ,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 200(1) & 200(1A) of the income tax Act. In all appeal there are certain common facts relating to the condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, therefore, all the appeals were clubbed together heard and are decided by consolidated order. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite sending repeated notices at the address given

SNP MERCHANT PVT.LTD, ,SURAT vs. ITO(TDS)-2,, SURAT

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 200(1) & 200(1A) of the income tax Act. In all appeal there are certain common facts relating to the condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, therefore, all the appeals were clubbed together heard and are decided by consolidated order. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite sending repeated notices at the address given

SNP MERCHANT PVT.LTD, ,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 200(1) & 200(1A) of the income tax Act. In all appeal there are certain common facts relating to the condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, therefore, all the appeals were clubbed together heard and are decided by consolidated order. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite sending repeated notices at the address given

RAJESHBHAI D. DUNGARANI (HUF),SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal as framed by me is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rajeshbhai D Dungarani (Huf), I.T.O., 15-A, Sundaram Park Society, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Dabholi Road, Surat-395004 Surat. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aakhr 4970 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 5 of Limitation Act, the Court ought to adopt pragmatic approach. It was further held that distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and the cases where delay is of few days only. Considering the fact that the assessee is diligent in pursuing the appeal and the delay is only of 37 days

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay of 876 days in filing all the appeals is condoned. 11. Now adverting to the facts of case on merit. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration that is assessment year (AY) 2009-10, declaring income of Rs.2,57,673/- on 15.10.2009. Subsequently, case of assessee

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay of 876 days in filing all the appeals is condoned. 11. Now adverting to the facts of case on merit. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration that is assessment year (AY) 2009-10, declaring income of Rs.2,57,673/- on 15.10.2009. Subsequently, case of assessee

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay of 876 days in filing all the appeals is condoned. 11. Now adverting to the facts of case on merit. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration that is assessment year (AY) 2009-10, declaring income of Rs.2,57,673/- on 15.10.2009. Subsequently, case of assessee

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.8/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Raiyani Brothers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Dumaswala Compound, Near Ward-3(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Sargam Doctor House, Hira Baug, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Varachha Road, Surat – 395006. 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2012-13 made on the 17.05.2019 vide ITA No.8/SRT/2021, which was communicated to us on 06.06.2019. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date

RANJITLAL CHHAGANLAL SHAH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI

3 Ranjitlal Chhaganlal Shah Vs ITO 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the affidavit of assessee for condonation of delay. There is no dispute that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 03/02/2017 and that the present appeal is filed only on 10/07/2018, thus there is inordinate delay

MAHAMADALI ADAM PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFOCER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mahamadali Adam Patel Income Tax Officer, Apana Nagar Society, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Vs At P.O. Vagara, Bharuch-392001 Pan No: Adxpp 0699 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Krutarth K Desai, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 03.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 27.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)/ Assessing Officer Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 19.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Appellant Was Hold The Status Of Agriculturist, During The Year Under Consideration I.E. Ay 2017-18. The Entire Money Received Was The Income From Agriculture Activities Which Are Wholly Exempt Mahamadali Adam Patel From Taxation Purview. Hence The Appellant Is Not Liable To Pay Any Tax On This Income Addition Made By The Authority & Hence This Appeal. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Appreciating The Factual Matrix Of The Case & Therefore The Addition Deserves To Be Deleted.

200/- in its order dated 27.11.2021. The assessee was required to file his appeal within 60 days i.e., on or before 21.01.2022. However, the appeal of assessee filed on 03.02.2023. It is further stated that entire period of delay is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo 2 Mahamadali Adam Patel Motu

ITO, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT vs. JITENDRA AZAYSINGH BABEL, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is partly allowed resultantly, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

3 days, therefore, keeping in view the fact that when technical consideration are petted against the cause of substantial justice, the cause of substantial justice may be prevailed. Therefore, the delay of three days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. Now adverting to the adjudication of the appeal. 6. Brief facts of the present case are that

JITENDRA AXAYSINGH BABEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is partly allowed resultantly, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

3 days, therefore, keeping in view the fact that when technical consideration are petted against the cause of substantial justice, the cause of substantial justice may be prevailed. Therefore, the delay of three days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. Now adverting to the adjudication of the appeal. 6. Brief facts of the present case are that

RAJESH C DALAL-HUF,SURAT vs. ADDL/JT/DEPUTY/ASST CIT/NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTER DELHI , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rajesh C. Dalal-Huf, A.C.I.T., P-260, Old Gidc Estate, National E-Assessment Vs. Katargam, Surat-395004. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aalhr 4363 J Appellant Respondednt

200% of tax payable of misreporting income. The misreporting income in the assessment order was Rs. 48,202/-. Thus, the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 96,404/- under section 270A in order dated 02.03.2022. Aggrieved by the order of penalty under section 270A, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee was adjudicate by NFAC