ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. 8. It is significant to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Telegana in the case of Shri Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 427 ITR 204 in the identical facts and circumstances has condoned the delay

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 263 of the Act, is an appealable order\nbefore the ITAT (Tribunal). Therefore, because of the mistake of the tax\nconsultant of the assessee, the delay of 331 days in filing the appeal before this\nTribunal has caused, for that assessee should not be penalized. Therefore, Ld.\nCounsel contended that delay of 331 days in filing, the appeal

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful

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.

3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 18.01.2021 and directed the assessing officer to make fresh assessment order. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are bad and illegal inasmuch as the very issue

MAYURBHAI HIRABHAI SINDHAV ( MALDHARI),RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot, both dated 02.01.2017, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 25.03.2014 and 13.03.2015. ITA No. 570&571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay 2. Since

MAYURBHAI HIRABHAI SINDHAV (MALDHARI),RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot, both dated 02.01.2017, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 25.03.2014 and 13.03.2015. ITA No. 570&571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay 2. Since

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also 119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also 119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

delay in filing the appeals, for which condonation was sought and granted.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT's orders were not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and taken a plausible view, and the conditions for invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 were not met. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's orders.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

OM CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

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

condoned the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and the case was not discussed on merits by the CIT(A), which violates the principle of natural justice.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "272A (1)", "143(3

SHAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

143(3) and penalty order under section 271(1) (C ) of the Act. Shri Anish Hasan Bakhai ITA No.132 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2017-18) 2 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 442/RJT/2024 [u/s. 271(1)(c) Penalty Appeal) for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 214 days, before this Tribunal. The assessee moved

SAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

143(3) and penalty order under section 271(1) (C ) of the Act. Shri Anish Hasan Bakhai ITA No.132 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2017-18) 2 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 442/RJT/2024 [u/s. 271(1)(c) Penalty Appeal) for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 214 days, before this Tribunal. The assessee moved

KHADAKALA SEVA SAHKARI MANADLI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.199/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2018-19 Khadakala Seva Sahkari Mandali Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Savarkundla, Amreli, 364515 Gujarat - 365650 Vs [C/O. D. R. Adhia Om Shri Padamlaya, Near Trikamrayji Haweli, 16- Jagnath Plot, Dr. Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001] "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabak3647B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M:

delay may not be condoned and appeal of Assesee may be dismissed. 2. Without prejudice to above, brief submissions on merit are as under: a) It is undisputed that ROI of subject AY 2018-19 was not filed by Assesee within due date. b) As per section 80AC of chapter VIA of income tax act applicable from

SURENDRABA RAGHUVIRSINH CHUDASAMA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income tax Act, therefore, it cannot be said that assessee was not effectively pursuing the appeal. Therefore, ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that delay may condoned

SHRI SHANTILAL MALTIPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR. vs. THE ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX & THE ITO-TDS-CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.275/Rjt/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes whereas

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 01. The Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Jam has erred in law as well as on facts by rejecting the appeal of the appellant on technical ground of not condoning delay in filing appeal within the time limit. The Hon. CIT(A)/ 3am. Ought to have consider the genuine