ITAT Rajkot Judgments — December 2025

K.G.N.ENTERPRISE,VERAVAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, VERAVAL

ITA 181/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of salary expenses was not based on valid reasons and was based on surmises and conjectures. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence and its books of accounts were not rejected. The Tribunal found that the salary expense was paid for services rendered, and it is the assessee's prerogative to decide salary amounts.

GIRISH LAHORI,GANDHIDHAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 283/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed9 Dec 2025AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The primary reason for this decision was the lack of independent application of mind by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) while granting approval for the reopening. The PCIT's approval, which merely stated "Yes, I am satisfied," was considered mechanical and a "borrowed satisfaction." The Tribunal emphasized that Section 151 of the Act requires the competent authority to record an independent satisfaction based on tangible material, reflecting an objective application of mind, rather than simply relying on the Assessing Officer's reasons. Citing the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in *Adani Ports And Special Economic Zone Ltd. v. DCIT* and the Supreme Court in *CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd.*, the Tribunal reiterated that a mechanical approval renders the reopening invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. As the reassessment itself was quashed, all other issues concerning additions on merits and other technical grounds were rendered academic and infructuous. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on this technical ground.

SATVARA GNATI SAMAJ SEVA MANDAL,MORBI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), RAJKOT

ITA 436/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed9 Dec 2025AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and perusing the available record, noted that the CIT(A)'s order mentioned issuing notices but not their service upon the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and submit all required documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, as the primary decision was to remand the case.

NAVINBHAI BACHUBHAI MAKADIA L/H. SAMIRBHAI NAVINBHAI MAKADIA,RAJKOT vs THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (3) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 207/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative did not appear on multiple hearing dates, and no proper justification for the delay or non-appearance was provided. The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

ITA 251/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The primary reason for dismissal was the low tax effect. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect, calculated at the normal rate, amounted to Rs. 38,96,937/-, which falls within the revised monetary limits for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 (Rs. 60,00,000/-). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this administrative ground. As the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, the cross-objection filed by the assessee became academic and did not require adjudication. All other issues on the merits of the additions made by the AO were rendered infructuous. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of whether the addition under Section 68 was justified.

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

ITA 499/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed8 Dec 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to the absence of a signature from the concerned authority. Consequently, the reassessment order framed by the AO was quashed.

DUDABHAI MALDEBHAI ANTROLIYA,RANAVAV vs ITO WARD 2 (4), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

ITA 686/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were sufficient cause. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

SHREE VIKAS SHARAFI SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,RAJKOT vs PCIT-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 228/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed8 Dec 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted a registration certificate and evidence of income earned from interest on loans to members, as well as interest from bank accounts and dividend income. The Tribunal referred to decisions of the Gujarat High Court regarding deductions for cooperative societies. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and concluded that the order passed by the PCIT was not sustainable.

LUNAR CERAMICS,WANKANER vs PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 226/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal found that the PCIT should re-consider the evidence regarding the source of funds, as the AO had not adequately examined the 'source of the source' as required by Section 68. The PCIT's order was set aside, and the issue was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

HARJIVANBHAI MAKANBHAI BARASARA,MORBI vs ITO, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

ITA 696/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for both quantum and penalty matters. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay, attributing it to the advocate's mistake, to be convincing and supported by the decision in M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the assessee should not be penalized for the advocate's error. On the merits, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. A cost of Rs. 6,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, due to his non-compliance attitude. The penalty appeal was also remitted as the quantum appeal was set aside.

RAMESHBHAI RATNABHAI PARSANA,RAJKOT vs THE DEPUTY CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT

ITA 219/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed8 Dec 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the cash deposit and did not provide any proper explanation. The involvement of Shri Saurabh Kathwadia in the angadia business was also considered. The Tribunal found that the case was not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities.

HARJIVANBHAI MAKANBHAI BARASARA,MORBI vs ITO,WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

ITA 697/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for both quantum and penalty matters. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay, attributing it to the advocate's mistake, to be convincing and supported by the decision in M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the assessee should not be penalized for the advocate's error. On the merits, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. A cost of Rs. 6,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, due to his non-compliance attitude. The penalty appeal was also remitted as the quantum appeal was set aside.

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

ITA 498/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed8 Dec 2025AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) observed that the AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) without making any additions, and the assessed income was the same as the income processed by the CPC under section 143(1). The CIT(A) concluded that since no adverse action was taken against the assessee in the impugned assessment order, there was no ground of appeal. The grievance, according to the CIT(A), arose from the processing of the return of income by the CPC under section 143(1) at a higher income than the returned income, and this grievance could not be addressed by filing an appeal against a different assessment order. Therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not relevant and allowable. The Tribunal, in its decision, did not address the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the disallowance of section 80JJAA deduction or the validity of CPC's adjustments under section 143(1). The Tribunal's operative direction is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the context suggests that the appeal before the ITAT is likely to be decided based on the CIT(A)'s reasoning.

SHYAM HASMUKHBHAI RUPAREL,RAJKOT vs ITO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

ITA 694/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, indicating a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

LAKHABHAI BACHUBHAI TIMBADIA,RAJKOT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT

ITA 685/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment was carried out under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, and the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) was an ex-parte and non-speaking order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case successfully before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the available material, which constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted a sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest their case. Therefore, without delving into the merits, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest their stand forthwith. The order of the Learned CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed.

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

ITA 783/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Given that the quantum appeals for AY 2019-20 and AY 2018-19 were restored by the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeals were also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was given the liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if necessary.

SHRI IKBALBHAI JUMABHAI KHIRANI,RAJKOT vs THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1), RAJKOT

ITA 843/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were vague, uncertain, and lacked a live link to the formation of belief of escaped income. The notice under Section 148 was issued on the basis of incorrect and insufficient information.

RAJASTHANI MAHESHWARI SAMAJ,KUTCH vs ITO WARD - 2 , GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 708/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out u/s 144 and the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking. It was held to be a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard.

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

ITA 786/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Given that the quantum appeals for AY 2019-20 and AY 2018-19 were restored by the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeals were also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was given the liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if necessary.

MAHENDRABHAI PRAGJIBHAI CHUDASAMA,RAJKOT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 814/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard, and the CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits, which violates the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction to pass a speaking order within six months.

DREAM INFRASTRUCTURE,RAJKOT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 220/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening the assessment were recorded for Assessment Year 2013-14 and not for the relevant Assessment Year 2011-12. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2011-12 were bad in law and liable to be quashed.

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

ITA 784/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Given that the quantum appeals for AY 2019-20 and AY 2018-19 were restored by the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeals were also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was given the liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if necessary.

CHINTAN UMEDSINH SODHA,JAMNAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR

ITA 246/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that some evidence was provided, but acknowledged inconsistencies. It directed a 10% net profit rate addition on the total disputed income, considering the agreement of both parties for an ad-hoc disallowance.

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

ITA 785/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Given that the quantum appeals for AY 2019-20 and AY 2018-19 were restored by the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeals were also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was given the liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if necessary.

SANGITABEN HITESHBHAI RUPARELIYA,JANNAT vs ITO WARD 3(1)(1), RAJKOT

ITA 479/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and the CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits, violating the principle of natural justice. While imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee for non-compliance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

SANGITABEN HITESHBHAI RUPARELIYA,JANNAT vs ITO WARD 3(1)(1), RAJKOT

ITA 480/RJT/2024[2009-10]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and the CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits, violating the principle of natural justice. While imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee for non-compliance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

SANGITABEN HITESHBHAI RUPARELIYA,JANNAT vs ITO WARD 3(1)(1), RAJKOT

ITA 482/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and the CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits, violating the principle of natural justice. While imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee for non-compliance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

SANGITABEN HITESHBHAI RUPARELIYA,JANNAT vs ITO WARD 3(1)(1), RAJKOT

ITA 481/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and the CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits, violating the principle of natural justice. While imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee for non-compliance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

GOVABHAI LAKHABHAI RABARI,ANJAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(ITO), GANDHIDHAM

ITA 877/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make the assessment because a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued. Consequently, the assessment order and subsequent penalty were quashed.

GOVABHAI LAKHABHAI RABARI,ANJAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(ITO), GANDHIDHAM

ITA 878/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make the assessment because a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued. Consequently, the assessment order and subsequent penalty were quashed.

URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 466/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Dec 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessment was reopened based on incorrect facts and that the assessee had not claimed any LTCG but only STCG, which was disclosed and taxed. The reasons for reopening were deemed erroneous and lacking a live link with the formation of belief.