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

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

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

ANIL SINGH HARIPRASAD SINGH RAJPUT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 859/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Anil Singh Hariprasad Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward- Rajput,135-135, Viththal Nagar 3(2)(1), Surat, Room No.416, बनाम Society, Bapasitram Chowk, Dabholi 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Road, Surat-395 004 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Amnpr 5655 F] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

271F of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the case appellant craves for admission of addition evidence in the interest of natural justice and equity. 9. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the Tribunal

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was stated in Form 35 that

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was stated in Form 35 that

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was stated in Form 35 that

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was stated in Form 35 that

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was stated in Form 35 that

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was stated in Form 35 that

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was stated in Form 35 that

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was stated in Form 35 that

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condoned the delay. The findings of the CIT(A) is at para 15 of the\norder. He found that assessee is distributor of mobile recharge of Uninor\nCompany under the trade name of ‘Keshari Nandan Enterprises' and he\nreceived commission income. He has not filed return u/s 139 or 148 of the Act\nfor AY.2012-13. The CIT(A) observed that

DHRUV ASHOKBHAI JAGANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.600/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Dhruv Ashokbhai Jagani, Vs. Ito, S/99, Someshwara Enclave, Ratna Ward - 1(1)(1), Prabha Co-Op. Housing Society, Surat Vesu, Surat-395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alkpj5116B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

section 253(3) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that the CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 15.03.2024. The appeal before this Tribunal was required to be filed on 19.05.2024. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 21.05.2025. Therefore, the ld. AR requested to condone the delay in the interest

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay. The findings of the CIT(A) is at para 15 of the order. He found that assessee is distributor of mobile recharge of Uninor Company under the trade name of ‘Keshari Nandan Enterprises’ and he received commission income. He has not filed return u/s 139 or 148 of the Act for AY.2012-13. The CIT(A) observed that

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay. The findings of the CIT(A) is at para 15 of the order. He found that assessee is distributor of mobile recharge of Uninor Company under the trade name of ‘Keshari Nandan Enterprises’ and he received commission income. He has not filed return u/s 139 or 148 of the Act for AY.2012-13. The CIT(A) observed that

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay. The findings of the CIT(A) is at para 15 of the order. He found that assessee is distributor of mobile recharge of Uninor Company under the trade name of ‘Keshari Nandan Enterprises’ and he received commission income. He has not filed return u/s 139 or 148 of the Act for AY.2012-13. The CIT(A) observed that

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay. The findings of the CIT(A) is at para 15 of the order. He found that assessee is distributor of mobile recharge of Uninor Company under the trade name of ‘Keshari Nandan Enterprises’ and he received commission income. He has not filed return u/s 139 or 148 of the Act for AY.2012-13. The CIT(A) observed that

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay. The findings of the CIT(A) is at para 15 of the order. He found that assessee is distributor of mobile recharge of Uninor Company under the trade name of ‘Keshari Nandan Enterprises’ and he received commission income. He has not filed return u/s 139 or 148 of the Act for AY.2012-13. The CIT(A) observed that

MEGHNA ORGANIC,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-5, VAPI

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Delay condoned. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) for Assessment Year