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 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

STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 200A was passed by the ACIT- CPC Ghaziabad was never received by the assessee nor the same is in possession of the assessee. The assessee has only taken the printout of demand notice for Rs. 1000 through web site of income-tax Department. The assessee being a Public Sector Bank has to obtained approval through proper channel approval

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 200A was passed by the ACIT- CPC Ghaziabad was never received by the assessee nor the same is in possession of the assessee. The assessee has only taken the printout of demand notice for Rs. 1000 through web site of income-tax Department. The assessee being a Public Sector Bank has to obtained approval through proper channel approval

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 200A was passed by the ACIT- CPC Ghaziabad was never received by the assessee nor the same is in possession of the assessee. The assessee has only taken the printout of demand notice for Rs. 1000 through web site of income-tax Department. The assessee being a Public Sector Bank has to obtained approval through proper channel approval

STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 200A was passed by the ACIT- CPC Ghaziabad was never received by the assessee nor the same is in possession of the assessee. The assessee has only taken the printout of demand notice for Rs. 1000 through web site of income-tax Department. The assessee being a Public Sector Bank has to obtained approval through proper channel approval

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 200A was passed by the ACIT- CPC Ghaziabad was never received by the assessee nor the same is in possession of the assessee. The assessee has only taken the printout of demand notice for Rs. 1000 through web site of income-tax Department. The assessee being a Public Sector Bank has to obtained approval through proper channel approval

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

BHARATBHAI NAGINBHAI PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(b). 6. The ld Counsel has filed the petition for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons of delay in filing the appeal before NFAC/ld CIT(A), which is reproduced below: “1.Appellant is an agriculturist and has no economic activity or business

URMILABEN THAKORDAS SOPARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Urmilaben Thakordas Ito Sopariwala, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil 8/743, Hanuman Char Rasta, Vs. Hospital Majuragate, Gopipura, Surat-395001. Surat-395001. Pan No. Aprps 5313 J Appellant Respondent

40,658/- and secondly and secondly, addition u/s 50C of the Act amounting to Rs.7,36,213/ the Act amounting to Rs.7,36,213/-. 3. On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the registered e-mail ID as well

KESHRI EXPORT,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.186/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Keshri Export, Vs. The Ito, 123, Gurunagar Society, Opp. Baroda Ward-3(3)(1), Prestige, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat – 395006. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk3785D Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Milan Kamble, Sr. Dr 18/07/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are as follows. The assessee has filed his return of income on 30.09.2017, declaring total income of Rs.6,72,826/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Later on, the assessee`s case was selected

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

section 144 of the Act, therefore, considering the overall facts of the case and the submission of Ld. AR of the assessee, we find that there was no inordinate delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Otherwise, circumstances suggested that assessee was 5 Baijnath Goel interested in contesting the matter / appeal on merit. Hence, delay in filing appeal before

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

JANVI THREAD PRIVATE LIMTED,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT

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

40 taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) held that unless the delay is gross or\nintentional, mala fide or deliberate, delay may be condoned. Hon'ble Apex Court\nin a celebrated decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs Mst Katiji (1987) (2)\nSCC-107 held that there is no presumption under law the delay in filing appeal\nis intentional. The parties

JANVI THREAD PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), 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. 1005/Srt/2024 (Ay 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1006/Srt/2024 (Ay 2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1007/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Janvi Thread Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3-A, Prathik Apartment, Near Hdfc 1(1)(3), Surat, Room # 113, बनाम Bank, Near Megh Mayur Apartment, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Parle Point, Surat-395 007 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Aaccj 7343 J] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 144/147 on 20.05.2023 by taking view that despite allowing opportunity. The AO made addition of transaction in various bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by not condoning the delay in filing appeal before him, resultantly, the appeal was dismissed in limine. Now, before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee has explained the delay

JANVI THREAD PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), 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. 1005/Srt/2024 (Ay 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1006/Srt/2024 (Ay 2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1007/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Janvi Thread Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3-A, Prathik Apartment, Near Hdfc 1(1)(3), Surat, Room # 113, बनाम Bank, Near Megh Mayur Apartment, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Parle Point, Surat-395 007 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Aaccj 7343 J] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 144/147 on 20.05.2023 by taking view that despite allowing opportunity. The AO made addition of transaction in various bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by not condoning the delay in filing appeal before him, resultantly, the appeal was dismissed in limine. Now, before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee has explained the delay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 15.09.2023. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 29.06.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 63 days. The assessee

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

condone the delay in filing in some of the present appeals. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that on account of not filing the appeals by the revenue within the period of limitation, their vested right to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was taken away. We have rejected such an argument firstly by holding