NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condone the delay in filing the return of income for the assessment year 1997-98 is liable to be set aside.' In Jay Vijay Express Carriers v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 61/215 Taxman 562 (Guj.), in relevant paragraph 16 of the said judgment, this Court held as under : "16. In our opinion, in the present case, there would be genuine

NAVBHARAT CHERITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARUCH

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ward-1, Vs. Gujarat, Pin-393115 Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condone the delay in filing the return ITA 27/Srt/2023 Navbharat Charitable Trust Vs ITO of income for the assessment year 1997-98 is liable to be set aside.' In Jay Vijay Express Carriers v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 61/215 Taxman 562 (Guj.), in relevant paragraph 16 of the said judgment, this Court held as under : "16. In our opinion

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)

condone the delay in both appeals of the assessee. 11. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1(in ITA No.628/SRT/2023), therefore, I dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as “not pressed”. 12. Now, I take ground

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)

condone the delay in both appeals of the assessee. 11. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1(in ITA No.628/SRT/2023), therefore, I dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as “not pressed”. 12. Now, I take ground

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

section 253(5) of the Act is sufficiently elastic to enable the Tribunal to apply the law which subserves the ends of justice. It has been held in a number of cases that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim

SHRI ANURAGRAIJI V. GOSWAMI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1331/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Anuragraji V. Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. Yogesh B. Shah, Ward-5(1), Surat. 5/458, Haripura, Kaljug Street, Surat-395003 [Pan: Aajpt 4629 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

31-05- 2014. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating therein the reason and circumstances causing the delay. It was submitted that due to shifting residence from Surat to Banaras, the delay was caused. So, there was no Anuragraji V. Goswami v. ITO, Ward-5(1),Surat/ITA. 1331/AHD/2017/A.Y.2006-07 Page 2 of 8 intention to not abide by provision

GAHNSHYAM K KEVADIYA HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this\nappeal is allowed

delay in filing both appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the\nmerit of the case.\n5. We find that during assessment the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that\nassessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 23,31,00/- in his bank account. Further\nthere was a credit of Rs. 39,57,606/- thus aggregating of total

BAIJNATH GOEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1339/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Baijnath Goel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 701, Prayag Residency, Parle Point, 1(2)(1), Surat, Room # 116, बनाम B/H Sargam Shopping Centre, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Surat-395 007 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Afipg 6263 N] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

31,41,650/- being cash deposits in bank account. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in not condoning the small delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Prayer. Baijnath Goel 3.1 The addition maybe kindly deleted

GHANSHYAM K KEVADIYA HUF,SURAT vs. ITO-1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this\nappeal is allowed

delay in filing both appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the\nmerit of the case.\n5. We find that during assessment the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that\nassessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 23,31,00/- in his bank account. Further\nthere was a credit of Rs. 39,57,606/- thus aggregating of total

B.G.JAIN INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 44/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) B. G. Jain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), 202, Shyam Apartment, In Kakadia Surat. Complex Lane, Opp. Kakadia Complex, Above Dr. Pokhran’S Clinic, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. E-Mail: Dbjain@Nakodaltd.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8848A आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 582/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 401, 4Th Floor, Union Trade Centre, Surat. Beside Apple Hospital, Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. E-Mail: Dbjain@Gmail.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn7281K Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) 26/07/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

31- 01-2019. Based on factual position as narrated above, we note that assessee has explained the sufficient cause. 7. The words "sufficient cause", as appearing in section 5 of Limitation Act, should receive a liberal construction when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part

NAKODA SYNTEX PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 44/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) B. G. Jain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), 202, Shyam Apartment, In Kakadia Surat. Complex Lane, Opp. Kakadia Complex, Above Dr. Pokhran’S Clinic, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. E-Mail: Dbjain@Nakodaltd.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8848A आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 582/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 401, 4Th Floor, Union Trade Centre, Surat. Beside Apple Hospital, Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. E-Mail: Dbjain@Gmail.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn7281K Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) 26/07/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

31- 01-2019. Based on factual position as narrated above, we note that assessee has explained the sufficient cause. 7. The words "sufficient cause", as appearing in section 5 of Limitation Act, should receive a liberal construction when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 9. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and filed her return of income on 04.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs.4,22,502/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice

SHRI PRAGNESH LALLUBHAI PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-4, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is unadmitted

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Shri Pragnesh Lallubhai Patel, Ito Ward-4, At Butlav, Post Dabhalai, Room No. 203, Swapnalok Soc. Navsari,-396466. Vs. Nr. Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari, Gujarat-396445. Pan No. Aodpp 0260 N Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the affidavit of the assessee explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to proceedings under the Income-tax Act. 3. The learned Counsel drew our attention to the averments in the affidavit wherein

BHUPATBHAI K. VAVDIYA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c) dated 3 Sh. Bhuptabhai K Vavdiya 28.04.2019 and realised that the appeal in the quantum assessment is dismissed. The assessee came to know only by the assistance of his Ld. Counsel on logging into the e-filing portal that appeal of assessee in quantum assessment has already been dismissed. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits

VEHEVAL MILK PRODUCER CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

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

condonation of delay. The CIT(A) may\nseek further clarification or details if it is warranted. If he is satisfied that\nappellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the\nmeaning of section 249(3) of the Act, he may admit the appeal and\ndecide the case on merit. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the\nassessee

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed