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

250 of the Act. He has dismissed the ground of the assessee by\nstating that there is no requirement to conduct enquiry and provide\nopportunity u/s 148A of the Act before issue of notice u/s 148 in cases\ncovered u/s 132 of the Act. He observed that the AO appears to have\nprovided opportunity u/s 148A of the Act before

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

250 of the Act. He has dismissed the ground of the assessee by stating that there is no requirement to conduct enquiry and provide opportunity u/s 148A of the Act before issue of notice u/s 148 in cases covered u/s 132 of the Act. He observed that the AO appears to have provided opportunity u/s 148A of the Act before

JITENDRAKUMAR AMBELAL PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Jitendrakumarambelal Patel Ito, Ward-3, 52, Kanbiwad. At & Po-Pananj, Room No. 108, Swapnalok Soc., Tal-Chikhli, Navsari-396521 Vs. Near Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari - 396521 Pan No. Bncpp 7509 R Appellant Respondent

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem

TULSI JEWELLERS,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, NAVSARI

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

250 of the Act. He condoned the delay and held that the reopening of the assessment u/s.147 was valid and based on a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. He also upheld the addition of Rs.13,20,000/- u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal

TULSI JEWELLERS,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 5, NAVSARI

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

250 of the Act. He condoned the delay and held that the reopening of the assessment u/s.147 was valid and based on a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. He also upheld the addition of Rs.13,20,000/- u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal

M/S. BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD -1, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 are illegal bad in law as the approval u/s 151 of the Act is invalid and bad in law. That the purported approval has been granted without any application of mind and therefore, the same is not in terms of the provisions of Section 151” ITA No.1581/AHD/2013 (AY 13-14)& M/s Base

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

147 r.w.s 144B may kindly be quashed and/or the additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted or the made by the assessing officer may please be deleted or the made by the assessing officer may please be deleted or the case may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with

DINESHBHAI MULACHANDABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1371/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dineshbhai Mulachandabhai Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ Patel Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Patidar Faliyu, Bhestan Gam, Gate, Surat-395 001 Choryasi, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bispp 4863 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) dated 05.12.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, “AO”) u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20.05.2023. Grounds

MOHANBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BELADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(5), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, 41-42, Vishnu Nagar Society – 1, Ward-3(2)(5), Ankur Char Rasta, A. K. Road, Surat Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aospb9227J (Assessee) (Respondent)

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law as the same has been disposed off without examining the merits of the case and is against the principles of natural justice. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in making addition of opening cash balance arbitrarily and without assigning any cogent reason and without bringing any evidence

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

250 on 08.01.2025. 10.5 As the AO passed his re-assessment order u/s 147 of the Act on 30.03.2022, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days by 29.04.2022 as per section 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

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

250 on 08.01.2025. 10.5 As the AO passed his re-assessment order u/s 147 of the Act on 30.03.2022, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days by 29.04.2022 as per section 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

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

250 on 08.01.2025. 10.5 As the AO passed his re-assessment order u/s 147 of the Act on 30.03.2022, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days by 29.04.2022 as per section 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

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

250 on 08.01.2025. 10.5 As the AO passed his re-assessment order u/s 147 of the Act on 30.03.2022, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days by 29.04.2022 as per section 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

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

250 on 08.01.2025. 10.5 As the AO passed his re-assessment order u/s 147 of the Act on 30.03.2022, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days by 29.04.2022 as per section 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

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

250 on 08.01.2025. 10.5 As the AO passed his re-assessment order u/s 147 of the Act on 30.03.2022, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days by 29.04.2022 as per section 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

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

250 on 08.01.2025. 10.5 As the AO passed his re-assessment order u/s 147 of the Act on 30.03.2022, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days by 29.04.2022 as per section 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

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

250 on 08.01.2025. 10.5 As the AO passed his re-assessment order u/s 147 of the Act on 30.03.2022, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days by 29.04.2022 as per section 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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Act. He has dismissed the ground of the assessee by stating that there is no requirement to conduct enquiry and provide opportunity u/s 148A of the Act before issue of notice u/s 148 in cases covered u/s 132 of the Act. He observed that the AO appears to have provided opportunity u/s 148A of the Act before

RADHA MADHAV ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK,VALSAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Act. He has dismissed the ground of the assessee by stating that there is no requirement to conduct enquiry and provide opportunity u/s 148A of the Act before issue of notice u/s 148 in cases covered u/s 132 of the Act. He observed that the AO appears to have provided opportunity u/s 148A of the Act before