STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between 101 days to 701 days in filing of appeal before him. The assessee has filed a chart showing delay for various quarters for filing of appeal. The main reason

STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between 101 days to 701 days in filing of appeal before him. The assessee has filed a chart showing delay for various quarters for filing of appeal. The main reason

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between 101 days to 701 days in filing of appeal before him. The assessee has filed a chart showing delay for various quarters for filing of appeal. The main reason

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between 101 days to 701 days in filing of appeal before him. The assessee has filed a chart showing delay for various quarters for filing of appeal. The main reason

SUSHILA RAJESH YADAV,SILVASSA vs. CIT APPEAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

1. The AO was biased in making huge addition of Rs.15,75,000/- by only\nconsidering cash deposits and not considering withdrawal bank entries of bank\nstatement.\"\n3.\nThe appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 806 days. The assessee has\nfiled an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal.\nIn the affidavit

KANTILAL DAYALBHAI RAMBHAI ,SURAT vs. ITO(INT. TAX), SURAT

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

253(3)", "Section 50C", "Section 144", "Section 147", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 274", "Section 271F", "Section 55A", "Section 2(14)", "Section 45"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of PAN mismatch without adjudicating on merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

SAHEBSINGH RAWAT,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD 8, VAPI

In the result, the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned

Section 253(5) of the Act is to be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice, as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123]. It has been emphasised that the length of delay is immaterial

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., ‘moulimaniImpexpl@gmail.com’ instead of ‘gandhi.himanshu92@yahoo.in’, which was mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) passed order on 23.12.2024 and due date

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., ‘moulimaniImpexpl@gmail.com’ instead of ‘gandhi.himanshu92@yahoo.in’, which was mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) passed order on 23.12.2024 and due date

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., ‘moulimaniImpexpl@gmail.com’ instead of ‘gandhi.himanshu92@yahoo.in’, which was mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) passed order on 23.12.2024 and due date

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., ‘moulimaniImpexpl@gmail.com’ instead of ‘gandhi.himanshu92@yahoo.in’, which was mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) passed order on 23.12.2024 and due date

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

253 ITR 798 (SC): 125 STC 375 inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration

SAROJ TILAKRAJ JUNEJA,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1048/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Saroj Tilakraj Juneja, Vs. The Dcit, 3, Subhas Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abbpj5634M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2025

1. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal on issue of non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal for 71 days though delay was for reasonable cause. 2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the additions by dismissing the appeal on ground of delay. ITA No.1048/SRT/2024/AY.2014-15 Saroj Tilakraj Juneja 3. the learned

JUNAID SULEMAN MOTARA,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, , NAVSARI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

1\nday and appeal ITA No.674//SRT/2023 for AY 2016-17 late by 46 days. The Ld. AR\nof the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by\naffidavit. The relevant part of application for delay is as under:\n“I would like to submit that I have filed an appeal under section 253

JUNAID SULEMAN MOTARA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT OSD, WARD THEREE NAVSARI

1\nday and appeal ITA No.674//SRT/2023 for AY 2016-17 late by 46 days. The Ld. AR\nof the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by\naffidavit. The relevant part of application for delay is as under:\n“I would like to submit that I have filed an appeal under section 253

BHUPATBHAI DHANJIBHAI KOTHARI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not well-educated and lacked knowledge of tax proceedings, and that the delay was not deliberate. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require giving an opportunity for hearing.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "139(1)", "147", "271(1)(c)", "274", "249(3)", "253

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

condonation of delay, which is reproduced below: “In respect of the above, I would like to submit that I have filed this appeal on 02.02.2021 under section 253(1

I K CORPORATION ,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in not admitting the appeal filed by assessee on the ground that appeal was filed belatedly although the genuine reasons were given for condonation of delay.” “2. On the facts and circumstances