MOEEN MEMORIAL WELFARE TRUST,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moeen Memorial Welfare Trust Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore Sheri Street, Opp. Petrol Pump, Vs. Olpad, Surat-394540 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadtm 2052 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

250 of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Asst. CIT, (CPC) while issuing intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act has erred in determining total income of assessee at Rs.3,70,850/- by disallowing expenses of Rs.3,70,850/- on the ground that registration

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in\nshort, 'the Act') by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years\n(AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals\nbefore the CIT(A) were against orders passed

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALTRET HOUSE, SAIYEDPURA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SAIYEDPURA SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICXER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

SUSHILA RAJESH YADAV,SILVASSA vs. CIT APPEAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

section 253(3) of the Act.\n5.\nWe have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of\ndelay. There was a delay of 806 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. In the\naffidavit, the appellant has stated that the CIT(A) issued the notices on e-mail\naddresses, i.e., ‘hkpantassociates@gmail.com' and 'hkp2012itr@gmail.com'.\nThe appellant has stated that

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

250 being passed. 3) That I came to know about the order only when my 3) That I came to know about the order only when my 3) That I came to know about the order only when my Counsel checked the status of the appeal on ITD Portal, Counsel checked the status of the appeal on ITD Portal, Counsel

SHRI PANKAJBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI SAVANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Pankajbhai Karamshibhai Savani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C-201, Saimilan Residence, Sudama Surat. Chowk, Mota Varachha, Surat - 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Berps5247H (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ca Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 26/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023

4. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue submitted that assessee has not explained the bonafide reasons to condone the delay, therefore such huge delay should not be condoned. The Ld. DR pointed out that assessee has changed three CAs/Advocates and in this process, there was a delay in filing the appeal and this

RAMESHCHANDRA BUDHIYABHAI AHIR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rameshchandra Budhiyabhai Ahir, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pilutha Faliyu, At & Post – Ward-1, Bardoli, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Siyalaj, Tal – Magrol, Dist – Surat, Surat – 394110 Bsnl Building, Station Road, Bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alfpa7625Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submitted that the assessee has failed to explain the sufficient reason to condone the delay, therefore delay should not be condoned. 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that delay of thirty seven days (37) in filling the appeal

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

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)

250 or even the factum of ex-parte order of Ld. CIT(A) being passed was not within my knowledge. It was only when Mehul Shah, partner of the firm Rasesh Shah and Co. was travelling to Dubai in end of April 2023 and he met my brother Mr. Himanshu Patel through a common connect and my brother Mr. Himanshu

KAMALDEEP HARCHARANJITSINGH DANG,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.408/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Vs. The Ito, Dang, Ward – 3(1)(1), 79A, Silver Oak Farm, Road Surat No.4, Ghitorni, New Delhi – 110030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acepd3949B (Appellant) (Respondent)

4) and 29A of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of 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. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel

RAMESHBHAI SAVJIBHAI DEVANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(5), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.65/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rameshbhai Savjibhai Devani Income Tax Officer, 7312/4 G.I.D.C., Road No.7/73, Ward-1(2)(5), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Sachin, Surat-394230 (Gujarat) Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 392001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Addpd 4518 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and, stated that assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause to condone the delay and mistake committed by the advocate of the assessee does not fall within sufficient cause, hence such huge delay should not be condoned. 5. We have heard

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