KRANTI ELECTRIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (4) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee(ITA No

133 days in both appeals and stated that the assessee has\nfailed to explain the sufficient cause to condone the delay, therefore, delay should\nnot be condoned, and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.\n7. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and note that reasons of\ndelay explained in the petition for condonation

HOTHI SAMAT KESHWALA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 408/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Hothi Samat Keshwala Ito, Wd – 2(4), At Visavada, Via Bokhira Porbandar, Vs. Income Tax Office, Nh-8E, Porbanadar – 360575 Porbandar Road, Porbandar-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Buppk0380P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 : 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: 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 05.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Vide Order 21.10.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963, in order to enable the Courts to do Page 2 of 8 Hothi Samat Keshwala substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. In Ramlal, & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [(1962) 2 SCR 762], it was laid down that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay

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)

delay of 29 days, is condoned in filing the appeal. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well on fact in upholding, addition made by ld.assessing officer by adopting profit rate of 4% without considering nature of business, facts and circumstances of the case and comparative cases

SHREEJI CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.266/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shreeji Ceramic Industries, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. 8/A National Highway, Lalpar Income Tax – 1, Morbi - 363642 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs8846B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1 [In Short, “The Ld. Pcit”], Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows.

133 (Jaipur – Trib.) 4. Rajmoti Road Movers Vs. PCIT-1, Rajkot On going through these judgements and various judgements of different High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court, we are inclined to derive a inference that when the delay is not attributable to the gross negligence or carelessness of the Assessee and when there is sufficient and reasonable cause

BALVANTRAI AMRUTBHAI VYAS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

Appeal is dismissed as “not pressed

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

section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time of delay. After considering the reason explained by the Ld. AR. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 427 days, and appeal filed by the assessee heard on merit

SHRI VIVEK PRAVINCHANDRA PALA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (2), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.

delay being condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of ₹ 2,18,500/-. During the course of assessment for the impugned assessment year, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown an amount of ₹ 10,01,133/- as opening capital balance

UMIYAJI STEEL INDUSTRIES,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT

The appeal is DISMISSED

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

condoned the delay of 294 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. 7. Brief facts of the case that the appellant had filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 20/12/2016 declaring total income at Rs.NIL. The said return of income was duly processed at CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act. Further, the case

SHRI RAMNIKLAL D. AGHERA,KESHOD vs. THE ITO WARD-1,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning the delay of 18 days in filing of the present appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee agriculturalist and holds 18.66 acres of land. For Assessment Year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 11,50,000/- in his savings bank account maintained with the State

JAGDISHCHANDRA SHANTILAL CHHATRALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WD 2(2)(3), RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

Condon application filed by the appellant which is not done in right perspective therefore considering the totality of facts, deeming it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessment Year: 2016-17 Page

BHARTIBEN VASHRAMBHAI SINDHAV,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

condoning the delay and hearing the appeal on merits. 3. On merits, the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from job work and agricultural income. During the year, the assessee had purchased a piece of agricultural land at Kuvada for an amount of " 1,16,86,000/- along with Shri

VIREN VALLABHDAS DHAKAN,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

condoned the delay in filing appeal by 363 days. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.08.2017 declaring therein total income at Rs.13,53,640/-. The return of income has been processed u/s. 143(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The case was selected for complete scrutiny

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)

delayering of funds in the process of money laundering. Upon detection, the Income Tax department has treated these sums as unexplained cash deposits and taxed the entire amount as deemed income. The ‘Angadiya/shroff’ have disclosed the modus-operandi in clear terms. vi. The “Angadiya” is a very common term in Gujarat. Another common term related to monetary transactions is “shroff

ARTI DEEPAKKUMAR PANDIT,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DWARKA

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 127/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Arti Deepakkumar Pandit Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 204,Shyam Dwarika Low Rise, Ito Ward – 1, Madhapar Chowkdi, Near Swami, Dwarka - 361335 Narayan Mandir, Rajkot - 360006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amnpp0638A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2025

Section 142(1) dated 20.07.2017. The assessee has deposited Rs 7632800 in Bank of India and Rs 13,18,075/- was deposited in Axis Bank. In view of the above notice u/s. 133(6) of the IT Act were issued to both the bank. The information for the same were received by the Ld. AO and in reference to that

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

KALPESH RAVJIBHAI SOJITRA,JASDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

133(6) of the Act were made, where in the bank statement of Indian Overseas Bank was received, that reflected the cash deposits in A/c. No. I.T.A No. 487/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 4 Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra 339433000000002 of Rs. 78,26,790/- and in A/c. No. 339402000000019 of Rs. 13,62,500/-. 7. Since, the assessee is a proprietor

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

delayering of funds in the process of money laundering. Upon detection, the Income Tax department has treated these sums as unexplained cash deposits and taxed the entire amount as deemed income. The '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 monetary transactions is \"shroff