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

BASANTILAL TARBA,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.512/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Bansntilal Tarba Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), बनाम/ 429/1023, Sundarnagar, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Ahimsa Circle, Bhilwara, Surat-395 001 Rajasthan- 311 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipt 1037 P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 24.01.2024 by the National Face Less Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s. 144 r.w.s

RAJESH C DALAL-HUF,SURAT vs. ADDL/JT/DEPUTY/ASST CIT/NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTER DELHI , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rajesh C. Dalal-Huf, A.C.I.T., P-260, Old Gidc Estate, National E-Assessment Vs. Katargam, Surat-395004. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aalhr 4363 J Appellant Respondednt

274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act dated 27/01/2021 fixing the date of compliance on or before 09/02/2021. In response to show cause notice, the assessee filed reply on 09/02/2021. In the reply the assessee besides justifying his stand as taken before assessing officer, submitted that they have filed application for seeking immunity from imposing the penalty as per section 270AA

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navsari Malesar Behdin Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward, Room Anjuman, Agary Street, Vs No.105, 1St Floor, Anavil Malesar, Business Centre, Aayakar Navsari-396445 Bhavan, Adajan Hazira Road, Pan No. Aaatn 6124 C Adajan, Surat-395007 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

condoned the delay in filing 4 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman appeal before him. The ld Sr DR for the revenue prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that the quantum assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed

VASUNDHARA VRIX VANWADI JAL SINCHN VIKAS SAHAKAI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vasundhara Vrix Vanwadi A.C.I.T., Jalsinchnvikas Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Navsari Circle, Navsari, Vs. Room No. 302, 3Rd Floor, “Vrindavan Campus” At:Lachhakadi, Post-Gangpur, Tal. Vansada, Dist.- Income Tax Office, Navsari, Gujarat-396050. Charpool, Awabaug, Pan No. Aaajv 0058 M Navsari, Gujarat-396445. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 30/03/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

SANJAYBHAI DAMJIBHAI GOLAKIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the appellant filed appeal u/s 253(1) of the Act on 09.09.2024, vide ITA No.951/SRT/2024, against the order dated 15.02.2024, which was uploaded on the Income-tax e-filing

SHRI HARISHKUMAR NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD - 2(3)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court) Mohmed Ismail Vakhawala, Vs The Ito, International C/O. Chirag Tambedia & Co., 9, Pruthvi Taxation, Bharuch. Nagar, 1St Floor, Station Road, Bharuch, 392001, Gujarat. [Pan : Abdpv 2440 D] Assessee Respondednt

delay condoned application. 6) The assessee craves for leave to add or amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that during the assessment stage, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as the grounds narrated in ITA No.399/SRT/2023 for AY.2013-14 have been

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as the grounds narrated in ITA No.399/SRT/2023 for AY.2013-14 have been

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as the grounds narrated in ITA No.399/SRT/2023 for AY.2013-14 have been

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as the grounds narrated in ITA No.399/SRT/2023 for AY.2013-14 have been

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as the grounds narrated in ITA No.399/SRT/2023 for AY.2013-14 have been

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as the grounds narrated in ITA No.399/SRT/2023 for AY.2013-14 have been

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as the grounds narrated in ITA No.399/SRT/2023 for AY.2013-14 have been

JIGNA JAYESHKUMAR MACWAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 & 416/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigna Jayeshkumar D.C.I.T., Macwan, Central Circle-2, Vs. D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Surat. Green Valley Apt., C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat- 395009. Pan No. Amkpm 9536 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 14/02/2021 asking the assessee as to why penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, within three days from issuing show cause notice

JIGNA JAYESHKUMAR MACWAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 & 416/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigna Jayeshkumar D.C.I.T., Macwan, Central Circle-2, Vs. D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Surat. Green Valley Apt., C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat- 395009. Pan No. Amkpm 9536 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 14/02/2021 asking the assessee as to why penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, within three days from issuing show cause notice

JIGNA JAYESHKUMAR MACWAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 & 416/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigna Jayeshkumar D.C.I.T., Macwan, Central Circle-2, Vs. D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Surat. Green Valley Apt., C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat- 395009. Pan No. Amkpm 9536 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 14/02/2021 asking the assessee as to why penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, within three days from issuing show cause notice

JIGNA JAYESHKUMAR MACWAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 & 416/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigna Jayeshkumar D.C.I.T., Macwan, Central Circle-2, Vs. D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Surat. Green Valley Apt., C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat- 395009. Pan No. Amkpm 9536 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 14/02/2021 asking the assessee as to why penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, within three days from issuing show cause notice