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

condonation of delay under section 119(2) (b) in filing form No. 10 (Rule 17(2) of the I.T. Act 1961 for AY 2014-15. Ref : Trust for Reaching the Unreached (PAN : AAATT1777H) Dear Sir, With reference to above referred subject, and under the instruction of our client, TRUST FOR REACHING THE UNREACHED we would like to state that

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

condonation of delay under section 119(2) (b) in filing form No. 10 (Rule 17(2) of the I.T. Act 1961 for AY 2014-15. Ref : Trust for Reaching the Unreached (PAN : AAATT1777H) Dear Sir, With reference to above referred subject, and under the instruction of our client, TRUST FOR REACHING THE UNREACHED we would like to state that

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,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,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, 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 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

SUSHILA RAJESH YADAV,SILVASSA vs. CIT APPEAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

section 253(3) of the Act.\n5.\nWe have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of\ndelay. There was a delay of 806 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. In the\naffidavit, the appellant has stated that the CIT(A) issued the notices on e-mail\naddresses, i.e., ‘hkpantassociates@gmail.com' and 'hkp2012itr@gmail.com'.\nThe appellant has stated that

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

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

85 days in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and without considering the merits of the case, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing of appeal before him. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only issue involved is with regards to production of Form 56F for claiming

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

85 days in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and without considering the merits of the case, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing of appeal before him. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only issue involved is with regards to production of Form 56F for claiming

PRASHANT R. MAMLATDARNA,BHARUCH vs. ITO-WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Prashant R Mamlatdarna Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), 6, Pritam Society No.1 Kasak, 1St Floor, Harkunj Building, Vs. Bharuch-392001 Above Bank Of Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adepm 4216 H (Appellant ) (Respondent)

85 days, and these days are connected with Covid-19 pandemic, as the assessee could not supply necessary documents and papers to his consultant due to fear of Covid-19 pandemic, as the pandemic is contagious was not fully recovered. Hence, in these circumstances, the delay of appeal filed by assessee is condoned and admitted for adjudication on merits

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

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 of the applicant/assessee, in order to advance substantial justice. The words "sufficient cause” for not making the application within the period of limitation" should be understood and applied

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed