BALDEVBHAI VITHHAKBHAI PATEL,PARDI vs. ITO, WARD 1, VAPI

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

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit\nfor condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been\nstated that the notices by the CIT(A) were sent on wrong e-mail id on\n'agriculturepardi@gmail.com' instead of ‘rrassociatesvapi@gmail.com'\n(mentioned in Form 35). After receiving a phone call from the revenue

USMAN VALI PATEL,BHARUCH GUJARAT vs. WARD 1(2), INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Usman Vali Patel, Vs. Ito, A-14 Assd Park, Near Khwaja Ward – 1(2), Township, Bharuch - 392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aykpp8165B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Krutarth Desai, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that he is not well educated to understand the e-proceedings or faceless assessment and appeal scheme. His tax consultant has given his own mobile number and e-mail

CHAMANA RAM,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD 1, VAPI

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 2011-12. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before AO and Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstancesbecause of which he could not 2 Chamana Ram, Vapi

CHINTANBHAI LAVJIBHAI DANKHARA,SURAT vs. ITO, SURAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. (2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in disposing of the appeal without adjudicating the validity and merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The C1T(A) has mechanically sustained the addition solely on the ground that no submission was made

M/S. RUBY GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Ruby Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ 10/15,Crown Plaza, 2(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Salabatpura, Surat-395 002 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecr 3885 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By None राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/03/2025

Section 253 of the Act for not filing the appeal within 60 days of the date on which the order of CIT(A) was communicated to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs. in Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025 dated 08.01.2025 observed that concept such as “liberal

JERAMBHAI BHAGVANBHAI GOHIL,VARACHHA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

delay in 3 Jerambhai B Gohil filing of assessee’s appeal is condoned. Now adverting the merit of the case. 5. At the outset of hearing, Ld Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing Ground No.1, which relates to re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. Considering the submission

SHREE INFRA,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. PCIT-1 has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in considering the Assessment Order dated 13/04/2021 passed