SHRI JAYESH CHANDULAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO,WARD-3(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2000-01) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Chandulal Shah, The Ito, Vs. A-74, Saify Society, Near Jain Ward – 3(3)(2), Temple, L. H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. Old Jurisdiction Ito, Ward- 9(2), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adzps8832Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.02.2020 vide ITA No.50/SRT/2020 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2000-01 made on the 19.08.2009, which was communicated to us on the 08.10.2009. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the 07.12.2009 counting the period of sixty days

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

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned

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

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned

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

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned

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

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned

MOEEN MEMORIAL WELFARE TRUST,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moeen Memorial Welfare Trust Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore Sheri Street, Opp. Petrol Pump, Vs. Olpad, Surat-394540 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadtm 2052 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 12AA of the Act, hence such genuine trust should be encouraged and should not be penalized for technical mistake. Therefore, Ld. AR submits that assessee-trust has furnished petition for condonation of delay, and explained the delay is a reasonable way. Therefore, he prays the Bench that delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A) may be condoned

TIRUPATI SHYAM ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tirupati Shyam Enterprise Nfac, Delhi Current F.P. No. 139 Orleaans, Near Jurisdiction: Dy. Cit Circle- Sosyo Circle Udhna Magadalla Vs. 1(1)(1), Road, Surat-395007. Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aagft 3570 Q Appellant Respondent

35. Once knowledge of the order was gained, prompt action was taken to institute the appeal. We are, therefore, action was taken to institute the appeal. We are, therefore, action was taken to institute the appeal. We are, therefore, satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. satisfied

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICXER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SAIYEDPURA SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALTRET HOUSE, SAIYEDPURA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , TDS, CPC, SURAT

section 249(3)\nof the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30\ndays, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within\nthe period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate\nAuthorities are not ‘walk-in-place' where appellants can approach whenever\nthey want

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

section 249(3)\nof the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30\ndays, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within\nthe period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate\nAuthorities are not ‘walk-in-place' where appellants can approach whenever\nthey want

SHREE BILIMORA VIBHAG ANAVIL MANDAL NUTAN PARK, SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY, MORARJI DESAI MARG BILIMORA NA vs. ARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condone on the ground that intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 was received by the assessee on 16.02.2016 i.e on the same day of the intimation order passed by the CPC banglore so filling appeal in delay of by the appellant has not acted with reasonable diligence and prudence which is not correct

SHREE BILIMORA VIBHAG ANAVIL MANDAL NUTAN PARK, SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY MORORJI DESAI MARG BILIMORA NA vs. ARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condone on the ground that intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 was received by the assessee on 16.02.2016 i.e on the same day of the intimation order passed by the CPC banglore so filling appeal in delay of by the appellant has not acted with reasonable diligence and prudence which is not correct

SHRI PANKAJBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI SAVANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Pankajbhai Karamshibhai Savani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C-201, Saimilan Residence, Sudama Surat. Chowk, Mota Varachha, Surat - 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Berps5247H (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ca Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 26/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023

condonation of delay are reproduced below: ITA.234/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Pankajbhai K. Savani “1. I am assessed with Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Surat, MY Permanent Account No. is BERPS5247H. 2. The assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15 was passed by Income-tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(3), Surat. Against this order