THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BHAGVANJI PRABHUBHAI AMRUTIYA, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

69A of the Act which is the total of the credit side of the notebook by treating the same as cash receipts from unaccounted sources. It is further seen that, he made disallowance of Rs. 54,04,130/- u/s 37 of the Act on the alleged ground of bogus purchases, that is, cash received from the suppliers against purchase claimed

THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT vs. SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus purchase is completely illogical. The averments made by Shri Naran Maheshwari in his statement was clarified by him in his duly sworn affidavit. Here it is relevant to emphasise that salt procurement and manufacturing industries by and large are driven by the unorganised and unskilled labourers / agents and village people, staying remotely in desert or forest there for they

TALSHIBHAI KANJIBHAI NAROLA,DAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WD 3(1)(4), RKT, AMRELI-RAJKOT

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

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

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 22.03.2023. Talsibhai K. Narola 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant ex-parte, by failing to appreciate that the Appellant

M/S PREMJI VALJI & SONS,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 125/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Premji Valji & Sons, The Principal Commissioner Of “Kuvarjibhai Tower”, Vs. Income Tax, Palace Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot. Pan: Aacfp7696K

69A in respect of on-money receipts, however, said order was set aside by Tribunal holding that AO had made detailed enquiries in respect of such on-money receipts and said view was also confirmed by High Court, SLP filed against decision of High Court was liable to be dismissed. The facts of this case were that pursuant to search

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)

Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be invoked in case where the transactions relating to the cash deposited into the bank account were recorded in the books of accounts and got them Audited by a Chartered Accountant and arrived the correct taxable income. The ld.Counsel has further contended that the assessing officer has accepted the books

CHUNILAL GOVIND VANIK,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

purchase and sales made by him during the year under consideration is not sufficient to claim these unaccounted receipts as business receipts. Therefore, ld. PCIT observedthat excess stock found during the survey and admitted by the assessee, as its income earned during that year,should be treated, as deemed income in view of the provisions of section

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

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

purchase and sales made by him during the year under consideration is not sufficient to claim these unaccounted receipts as business receipts. Therefore, ld. PCIT observedthat excess stock found during the survey and admitted by the assessee, as its income earned during that year,should be treated, as deemed income in view of the provisions of section

BHARATKUMAR KALYANJIBHAI BHINDI,JUNAGADH vs. PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 324/Rjt/2024 322/Rjt/2024 323/Rjt/2024 312/Rjt/2024 326/Rjt/2024 327/Rjt/2024 329/Rjt/2024 331/Rjt/2024 335/Rjt/2024 371/Rjt/2024

purchase and sales made by him during the year under consideration is not sufficient to claim these unaccounted receipts as business receipts. Therefore, ld. PCIT observedthat excess stock found during the survey and admitted by the assessee, as its income earned during that year, should be treated, as deemed income in view of the provisions of section

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

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

purchase and sales made by him during the year under consideration is not sufficient to claim these unaccounted receipts as business receipts. Therefore, ld. PCIT observedthat excess stock found during the survey and admitted by the assessee, as its income earned during that year,should be treated, as deemed income in view of the provisions of section

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

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

purchase and sales made by him during the year under consideration is not sufficient to claim these unaccounted receipts as business receipts. Therefore, ld. PCIT observedthat excess stock found during the survey and admitted by the assessee, as its income earned during that year,should be treated, as deemed income in view of the provisions of section

SOHAM PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

purchase and sales made by him during the year under consideration is not sufficient to claim these unaccounted receipts as business receipts. Therefore, ld. PCIT observedthat excess stock found during the survey and admitted by the assessee, as its income earned during that year,should be treated, as deemed income in view of the provisions of section

CORUS VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

bogus companies, since the same would amount to double taxation. Further, on perusal of the order passed by ld. PCIT, it is seen that the ld. PCIT has not established as to how the repayment of loans falls u/s. 69C of the Act when the assessee has not claimed the same as expenditure and also when the source of such

VISHAL KANAIYALAL DESAI,BHUJ vs. ACIT CIRCLE GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaअ.आ.न./Ita No.901/Rjt/2024

bogus LTCG from penny stock scrip. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 8. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in invoking provision of section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE in respect of the disclosure made by the appellant Rs. 25,05,400/- on account of fees from patients

ISHWARBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

bogus payments and the assessee made adjustment by giving payments through cheques to M/s Mirza Traders and in turn received back cash under the guise of purchase and the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 10,17,870 u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure to that extent. The Assessing Officer also

SMT. MADHVIBEN NILESHKUMAR GANTRA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 47/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Smt. Madhaviben Nileshkumar Income-Tax Officer, Ganatra, Vs. Ward-1(2)(5), 1St Floor Tirupati Appt., Rajkot. Rajputpara, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Asdpg2945B

69A of the Act. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -1, Rajkot erred in confirming action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 2,78,583/- by treating unsecured loan obtained by the appellant as unexplained cash credit u/s 68of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any of appeal anytime

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

69A of the Act. As such, the order passed by the AO is prima facle erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section 263 of the Act, 1961, Therefore, I intend to revise the order passed by the AO u/s 147 rws 1448 of the Act dated 30/03/2022

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 524 & 529/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vallabhbai Bhagwanjibhai Kathriya Income Tax Officer, Wd –2(10), Khitadia, Jamnagar – 361006 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aytpk7716N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

69A of the Act.” 4. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. The assessee before us is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The assessee is engaged in purchasing and selling of brass components on commission basis. As per the information there are total credits

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 524 & 529/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vallabhbai Bhagwanjibhai Kathriya Income Tax Officer, Wd –2(10), Khitadia, Jamnagar – 361006 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aytpk7716N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

69A of the Act.” 4. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. The assessee before us is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The assessee is engaged in purchasing and selling of brass components on commission basis. As per the information there are total credits

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money. The assessing officer also clarified that tax payable will be as per provision u/s115BBE of the Act, at maximum marginal rate @30% for the A.Y.2015-16. Further, as the receipts in the bank accounts are not proved to be from business hence the income returned by the assessee (in Return