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.

6. In support of the request to condone the delay, Ld. AR of the Assessee has submitted written submission running from 1 to 24 pages, in which several judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court and ITAT are cited. The judgements referred by the Ld. AR for the Assessee are as follows, 1. Senior Bhosale Estate

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

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

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

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

133(6) of the Act but Union Bank of India wherein the assessee deposited cash. Since the assessee has not availed any opportunity as per the observation of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 20.12.2018 thereby making addition of Rs.11,21,000/- as unexplained cash deposit. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed

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

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

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

6. We have heard both the parties. We note that delay of filing before this Tribunal That deponent was not being well-versed in the intricate provisions of taxation and legal procedures, relied entirely on professional guidance for compliance/submission with the appeal filing requirements. We have considered the submission advance by the AR the assessee is found to have

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

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

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

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

133(6) of the Act, dated 24.12.2022, was issued to M/s National Shroff & Co. Rajkot. Moreover, as per the information received from DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot and also on inquiry, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee is proprietor of Riya Traders/Poonam Jawellers, Rajkot and carried out transactions with M/s National Shroff & Co, Rajkot, amounting

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) , RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

133(6) of the Act, dated 24.12.2022, was issued to M/s National Shroff & Co. Rajkot. Moreover, as per the information received from DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot and also on inquiry, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee is proprietor of Riya Traders/Poonam Jawellers, Rajkot and carried out transactions with M/s National Shroff & Co, Rajkot, amounting

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

133(6) of the Act, dated 24.12.2022, was issued to M/s National Shroff & Co. Rajkot. Moreover, as per the information received from DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot and also on inquiry, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee is proprietor of Riya Traders/Poonam Jawellers, Rajkot and carried out transactions with M/s National Shroff & Co, Rajkot, amounting

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

133(6) of the Act, dated 24.12.2022, was issued to M/s National Shroff & Co. Rajkot. Moreover, as per the information received from DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot and also on inquiry, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee is proprietor of Riya Traders/Poonam Jawellers, Rajkot and carried out transactions with M/s National Shroff & Co, Rajkot, amounting

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 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