SUN EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

133(6) of\nthe I.T. Act. The assessment carried out in such mechanical manner cannot\nbe said to have been made after due application of mind. Therefore, ld. PCIT\nheld that assessing officer did not make any efforts to verify the assessee's\nclaim which clearly proves that assessing officer has passed the assessment\norder hurriedly, and without proper enquiry

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SIYARAM METAL UDYOG PVT. LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchase at Rs.72240 at 0.24% as against Rs. 18,06,014/- estimated by the A.O. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 4) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that

KETAN GORI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(10), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.42/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ketan Gori The Pr.Cit बनाम Plot No.3009 Jamnagar. Gidc Phase-Iii Vs. Dared. Pan : Ahppg 5892 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

6. In response to the notice of the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee submitted its written submissions along with documentary evidences, which are reproduced by the ld. Pr. CIT in the revision order. The assessee submitted before the learned PCIT that revision proceeding are mere change of opinion and without bringing anything new on the record. During the assessment proceedings

NARANJI RAJARAM DAVE,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PORBANDAR , PORBANDAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 822/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Naranji Rajaram Dave, Income Tax Officer, Wd -2(3), Vs. Porbandar-360575 17, 17 Naranji Rajaram Dave, Suttar Vada, Porbandar, Suttar Vada, Porbandar-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acjpd8823B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus. Further, in the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued to the IDBI Bank, HDFC Bank, PCC Bank and also to various entities for calling information related to the cash deposit made by the assessee during the year under consideration. On the basis of the same, all the notices issued

KHUSHBOO JAYKUMAR VITHLANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudasvithlani Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Income Tax, Gujarat – 361008 Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus and have remained unverified. The AO should have verified such transactions in details particularly when the core reason of selection of case for assessment is to verify the geniuses of purchases. However, it is seen that AO allowed the claim of purchase without any verification.” 6. In response to the Show cause notice issued

DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. VASANTBHAI MULJIBHAI KANANI, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 142(1) of the Act, which is placed on Paper Book (PB) Page no.10. In response to this notice, the assessee submitted all the documents and evidences, vide assessee’s reply dated 31.8.2023 wherein the assessee submitted the bill of lading, bill of entry and invoices, Bank statement, before the assessing officer. Apart from this, the assessee has also

JAY PRABHUDAS VITHALANI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

bogus and have remained unverified. The AO\nshould have verified such transactions in details particularly when the\ncore reason of selection of case for assessment is to verify the geniuses of\npurchases. However, it is seen that AO allowed the claim of purchase\nwithout any verification.\n6. In response to the Show cause notice issued

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act. 10. The ld Counsel further submitted that all the evidences are third- party evidences and it satisfy the requirement of the section 10(38) of the Act and without disproving the evidence the law does not empower the assessing officer without bringing anything on record to disbelieve the long term capital gain which

M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

133(6) of\nthe I.T. Act. The assessment carried out in such mechanical manner cannot\nbe said to have been made after due application of mind. Therefore, ld. PCIT\nheld that assessing officer did not make any efforts to verify the assessee's\nclaim which clearly proves that assessing officer has passed the assessment\norder hurriedly, and without proper enquiry

DHRUV PRINT PACK INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

133(6) of the I.T. Act. The assessment carried out in such mechanical manner cannot be said to have been made after due application of mind. Therefore, ld. PCIT held that assessing officer did not make any efforts to verify the assessee's claim which clearly proves that assessing officer has passed the assessment order hurriedly, and without proper enquiry

HETALKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

133(6) of\nthe I.T. Act. The assessment carried out in such mechanical manner cannot\nbe said to have been made after due application of mind. Therefore, ld. PCIT\nheld that assessing officer did not make any efforts to verify the assessee's\nclaim which clearly proves that assessing officer has passed the assessment\norder hurriedly, and without proper enquiry

ALTAF AYOOBBHAI VEHVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

bogus and were likely used to accommodate unaccounted money. Thus, purchases from these entities should have been disallowed and treated, as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s. 155BBE of the Act. The ld.PCIT observed that assessing officer failed to conduct any verification or inquiry to ascertain the genuineness of these transactions, despite it being the primary reason for scrutiny selection. 6

JABIR AYOOB VAHEVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

bogus and were likely used to accommodate unaccounted money. Thus, purchases from these entities should have been disallowed and treated, as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s. 155BBE of the Act. The ld.PCIT observed that assessing officer failed to conduct any verification or inquiry to ascertain the genuineness of these transactions, despite it being the primary reason for scrutiny selection. 6

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

133\n6,70,202 6,70,202 1,24,38,865\nUpto\n08.11.16\n1,24,38,865\n2,03,785\n2,03,785\n5,74,802 5,74,802 1,20,67,848\nTOTAL\n30,34,780 61,45,732 91,80,512\n46,49,944 46,49,944\nAs may be seen from the above summary of month- wise

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

133\n6,70,202 6,70,202 1,24,38,865\nUpto\n1,24,38,865\n2,03,785\n2,03,785\n5,74,802 5,74,802 1,20,67,848\n08.11.16\nTOTAL\n30,34,780 61,45,732 91,80,512\n46,49,944 46,49,944\nAs may be seen from the above summary of month- wise

SHAMJI NATHU VAISHYA,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

133(6) of the I.T. Act. The assessment carried out in such mechanical manner cannot be said to have been made after due application of mind.Therefore, ld. PCIT held that assessing officer did not make any efforts to verify the assessee's claim which clearly proves that assessing officer has passed the assessment order hurriedly, and without proper enquiry which

KISHOR VELJIBHAI FOFANDI,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

133(6) of the I.T. Act. The assessment carried out in such mechanical manner cannot be said to have been made after due application of mind.Therefore, ld. PCIT held that assessing officer did not make any efforts to verify the assessee's claim which clearly proves that assessing officer has passed the assessment order hurriedly, and without proper enquiry which

DEEPMALA MARINE EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

133(6) of the I.T. Act. The assessment carried out in such mechanical manner cannot be said to have been made after due application of mind.Therefore, ld. PCIT held that assessing officer did not make any efforts to verify the assessee's claim which clearly proves that assessing officer has passed the assessment order hurriedly, and without proper enquiry which