SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ACIT, WARD-2 (4), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 272A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the statutory notices issued u/s. 131(1A) of the Act. 7.1. Here also, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by Ld. NFAC on the ground of 13 days delay in filing the appeal, where

SHRI ASHWINKUMAR V. MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed in limine

Bench: Us. This Clearly Shows That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Above Appeal.

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11. I.T.A No. 52/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Ashwinkumar V. Mehta Vs. ITO 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 131 days in filing the above appeal by the assessee. However

SHRI RAKESH MADHUBHAI KANPARIYA,PREMPARA, DHARI, AMRELI-365640 vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 255/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shri Rakesh Madhubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Kanpariya Ward-3(1)(4), Rajkot- Vs. Prempara Dhari Prempara Amreli Dhrai, Prempara Dhari Dhari, Amreli – 365640, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Daipk3406F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri K. L. Solanki, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 18/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.07.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax

delay is condoned. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and also perused the relevant materials available on record including the orders passed by the authorities below. Upon going through the records, it appears that the case relates to deposit of substantial cash in the bank account during demonetization period where no return has been filed by the assessee

SHRI PRATAPBHAI HAMIRBHAI RATHOD,VILLAGE DUDANA, TALUKA KODINAR, DIST. GIR SOMNATH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 880 /Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod The Ito, Ward-1, Junagadh Vs. 8, Karadiya Gyati Vistar, Village Ito, Bhootnath Chamber, Opp. Dudana Of Kodiar Taluka, Boudin Collage, Dist. Gir, Somnath - 362720 Junagadh-362001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awypr7036H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Aggarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

131 of the Act. 3. The registree of this Tribunal informs that there is a delay of 354 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay support by the affidavit, relevant para contain reasons for the delay, the same is reproduced. Your Petitioner

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. EXPERT PARTICLE BOARD, 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

131(1A), he has stated that wherever, the name of bank is mentioned in the narration of transaction, they are all bank transactions and accounted in the books of accounts of the firm and the remaining transactions are cash transactions; In post-search investigation, Expert Particle Board and other partners of said firm have denied having carried out transactions

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

131(1A), he has stated that wherever, the name of bank is mentioned in the narration of transaction, they are all bank transactions and accounted in the books of accounts of the firm and the remaining transactions are cash transactions; In post-search investigation, Expert Particle Board and other partners of said firm have denied having carried out transactions

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoning it or taking part in it. Further down he said: " It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in the illegality." That crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. JAYDEEP T BADRAKIA, MORBI

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and in deciding the assessee's appeal on the basis of the same, without recording proper reasons

JAYDEEP THAKARSHIBHAI BADRAKIA,MORBI vs. ACIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and in deciding the assessee's appeal on the basis of the same, without recording proper reasons

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI NILESHBHAI SURESHBHAI UNTAVADIYA, MORBI

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and in deciding the assessee's appeal on the basis of the same, without recording proper reasons

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

condoning it or taking part in it.\"\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in the illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

delayering of funds in\nthe process of money laundering. Upon detection, the Income Tax department has treated\nthese sums as unexplained cash deposits and taxed the entire amount as deemed income. The\n'Angadiya/shroff' have disclosed the modus-operandi in clear terms.\nvi. The \"Angadiya\" is a very common term in Gujarat. Another common term related to\nmonetary transactions

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue