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

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 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 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,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 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,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,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

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

6. The Ld. Counsel has submitted the reasons for the effective delay of 365 days, which is mentioned in the affidavit and petition for condonation of delay stating that because of mistake of CAs/Advocates of the assessee, the so much delay has occurred. The assessee`s CAs/Advocates admitted this fact that they had committed mistake, therefore ld Counsel contended that

A. K. BUILDERS,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) A.K. Builders, I.T.O., Jay Apartment, Kathiria, Nani Daman Ward, Vs. Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut)- Daman. 396210. Pan No. Aamfa 7826 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condoned. 6. On merit, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in an ex parte order without considering the merit of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without adjudicating the various grounds of appeal as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income

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)

condone the delay of 37 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merit, Ld. Counsel contended that order passed by the Assessing Officer is under section 144 of the Act and order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is also an ex parte order. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not receive the notices of hearing, therefore

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)

6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A No.29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.” 9. Therefore, I note that the delay between the periods from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded in computing the delay due to Covid -19 pandemic. Therefore, the effective delay in filing the appeal in assessee’s case is less than the delay

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

S K KABRA & COMPANY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2)(1), SURAT, 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.502/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) S. K. Kabra & Company, The Ito, Vs. 101, “Kauttilya” Plot No.327, Ward-1(2)(1), Opp. Noble Paper, Khatodara, Surat Surat – 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfs6674D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘The Nfac’), Delhi, Dated 17.05.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Central Processing Centre (In Short ‘Cpc’), Bengaluru, U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 11.07.2018. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Is Barred By Limitation By Six (6) Days. Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted A Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Petition Are Reproduced Below:

delay is hereby condoned. 6. On merit, Ld. Counsel submitted that in assessee`s case, the order (Intimation) under section 143(1) of the Act, was passed by the CPC, Bengaluru, which contains the issue relating to TDS mismatch. The assessee could not file the reconciliation of TDS before CPC, Bengaluru. On appeal by the assessee

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

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)

6. The Ld. Counsel further stated that balance delay in filing both the appeals are on medical ground. The ld Counsel explained that due to severe illness suffered by assessee and the assessee was treated in hospital and in fact Form No.36 (appeal memo) was signed by the assessee in hospital while sleeping on bed itself. Therefore, ITA.628-629/SRT/2023/AYs.10-11

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)

6. The Ld. Counsel further stated that balance delay in filing both the appeals are on medical ground. The ld Counsel explained that due to severe illness suffered by assessee and the assessee was treated in hospital and in fact Form No.36 (appeal memo) was signed by the assessee in hospital while sleeping on bed itself. Therefore, ITA.628-629/SRT/2023/AYs.10-11

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)

condone the delay and admit appeal of the assessee for hearing. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that order passed by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. The assessee could not plead his case before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. Counsel prays before the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to assessee to plead

SHRI MURLI FATANDAS SAWLANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(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.215/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Hearing) Shri Murli Fatandas Sawlani, Vs. The Ito, Ward – 1(3)(3), C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Surat. 9Th Floor, Sopphire Ciomplex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adeps9862M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ketan Shah, Ar & Shri Aman K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/04/2023 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

delay is hereby condoned and we admit the appeal for hearing. 10. On merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order without adjudicating the issues involved in this appeal on the merits, therefore the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication