BHAVIN ARUNBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A of the Act. 5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that appeal filed

SUNILKUMAR ICHHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

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

delayed by 177 days due to communication issues with his tax consultant regarding hearing notices for the appeal before the CIT(A). The AO made a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act, treating cash deposits and credits totaling Rs. 72,68,976/- as unexplained money under section 69A.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

VIJAYBHAI BOOKBINDER,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD- 3(2)(10), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of the\nappeal is allowed and ground No

delay fell within the period condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "69A", "144", "254(1)", "249(3)", "250(1)", "119(2)(b)" ], "issues

SARFARAJ MOHMED BALERA,BHARUCH, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5), WARD (), BHARUCH

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

condoned the delay of 121 days, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's tax consultant's mishandling of communications. The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment was completed ex-parte. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section

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

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

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

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

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

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

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

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

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

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

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

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

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

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

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

section 69A are satisfied, making the assessee liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO, which the assessee could not rebut despite being granted reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Before the Tribunal also, the appellant

I K CORPORATION ,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A of the Act. Total income was determined at Rs.81,51,500/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). 6. There was delay of 437 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant has submitted application for condonation of delay, where it was submitted that the affairs of the assessee-firm were handled

I K CORPORATION,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A of the Act. Total income was determined at Rs.81,51,500/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). 6. There was delay of 437 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant has submitted application for condonation of delay, where it was submitted that the affairs of the assessee-firm were handled

VISHAL ENTERPRISE,VYARA vs. NFAC,DELHI, ITO WARD 1, BARDOLI, INCOME TAX OFFICE-BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1034/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Vishal Enterprise, Vs. The Ito, Vyara S.O., Vyara, Surat – 394650, Ward – 1, Gujarat Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfv2047E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 06.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the basis of facts and circumstances

RAZAK ABDULKARIM MANSURI,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha&Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condonation of delay. During the period under consideration, the appellant was commission agent. He was engaged in a distributorship of Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd and had earned commission income from the same. He had earned rent ~ 2 ~ ITA- 352/SRT/2024 Razak Abdulkarim Mansuri income from the house property and interest income. The appellant is filling his return of income regularly

BALDEVBHAI VITHHAKBHAI PATEL,PARDI vs. ITO, WARD 1, VAPI

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

69A and 68 of the Income-tax Act.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding that the delay was not deliberate. It also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

SHAILESH DEVRAJBHAI PADMANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.551/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Hearing) Shailesh Devrajbhai Padmani Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(5), बनाम/ A/503, Swarg Residency, Surat, Room No. 608, 6Nd Floor, Vs. Laxmikant Ashram Road, Nr. Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Hathiwala Mandir, Surat-395 Surat-395 001 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aoupp 6320 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 69A of the I.T. Act as unexplained money. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of appeal.” 3. In the instant