FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

condonation is made out for explaining the delay in this hopelessly time-barred appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. 12. Therefore, ld DR stated that since the order passed by the learned PCIT has been merged with the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), hence, present

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay inassessee`s appeal in ITA No. 595/Rjt/2024 (Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd.). 8. When, these two appeals called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 25.04.2025 in the case of“Shree Samrath Switchgear &Transmission P. Ltd. & Shri Samrath Electronics P. Ltd.& Shri Gojiya Bhikhubhai”, vide

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay inassessee`s appeal in ITA No. 595/Rjt/2024 (Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd.). 8. When, these two appeals called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 25.04.2025 in the case of“Shree Samrath Switchgear &Transmission P. Ltd. & Shri Samrath Electronics P. Ltd.& Shri Gojiya Bhikhubhai”, vide

NILESH ASHANAND THACKER,BHUJ vs. ITO WARD 4, GANDHIDHAM (BHUJ)

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing on merit. 8. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and had filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2012-13, on 25.03.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 1,78,070/-. During the year, the assessee has earned

HARUNBHAI NOORMAMD JINDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(7), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 407/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Harunbhai Noormamd Jindani The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(7), Kishan Chowk, Behind Bodyg, Vs. Jamnagar-Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar - 361001 Jamnagar-361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxpj4114C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 20.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 Of The Act, On 11.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

condone the delay. 7. On merit, facts of the assessee`s case are as follows. In the assessee`s case, as per instructions issued by CBDT, in the form of SOP dated 21/02/2017, verification was carried out, in respect of the transactions of cash deposits made in bank account relating to demonetization period and it was found that the assessee

SHREE PIPARDI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 448/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20)

delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a co-operative Credit Society and engaged in business of providing credit facility to its members. During the year under consideration A.Y 2019-20 assessee’s turnover of Rs.20,93,390/- from sale of agricultural produce, interest income

RAJENDRASINH RANJITSINH JADEJA,KHAKHADABELA,PADDHARI vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

business receipt treated as Income. 5. That the order of the assessment having addition of Rs. 12,10,000/- to the income of the assessee, is invalid and illegal as the Ld. A.O. has failed to mention any charge under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s.250

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

condone the delay. 7. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is a private limited company.The assessee- company had filed return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18, on 13/10/2017, declaring total loss of Rs.2,36,06,293/-. The assessee`s case was selected for Scrutiny through CASS. The assessment was finalized

BHAVESHBHAI HARIBHAI KANANI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partially allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.233/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम/ Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Kanani Income Tax Officer Plot No. E211, Gidc Phase-2, Vs Ward – 2(10), Jamnagar Dared, Jamnagar, Gujarat - 361008 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypk5085F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Income-tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’), dated 19.11.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on 20.04.2021. Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Kanani vs. ITO 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 70 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting

SHREE JAMNAGAR JILLA SAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT-CIR-2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.223/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

condone the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). 6. On merit, I note that while passing assessment order, the AO made addition of Rs.12,31,766/- on account of 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by this Division Bench of this Tribunal

SHRI VIPULBHAI YOGESHKUMAR TELI,CHALALA VILLAGE, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD 3(1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay is condoned. 4. On merit, the solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.15,00,000/-, cash deposit in bank account. 5. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before

RAJESH KANJIBHAI KORIYA,UPLETA vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.165/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18

condoning the delay are reproduced below: ITA No. 165/Rjt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Rajeshbhai K Koriya “1. That I am studied till 7th standard only and not well verse with the Income-tax proceedings at all. I am doing small business

KUMAR VANJANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFIVER WARD 2(7), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 275/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). 1 I.T.A Nos. 275/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Kumar Vanjani vs. ITO 2. The appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18, is barred by limitation by 29 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have gone through the petition for condonation

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

condoning the delay of 126 days in filing of the present appeal. On jurisdiction 4. On jurisdiction, the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. However, we observe that in the instant set of facts, there was a substantial cash deposit made by the assessee in his bank account. Further, the assessee has been