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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

LEXUS SOFTMAC,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) both dated 20.05.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short

LEXUS SOFTMAC,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) both dated 20.05.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

reassessment scheme, it is safely concluded that from 29th March 2022 the show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) should have been issued only by the National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC") and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ("JAO") Therefore, show cause notice issued by any authority other than NFAC is liable to be quashed. The reliance is placed