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.

151/-. Thereafter, the assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for the reasons to verify the following Viz: (i) introduction of large capital or share capital in the year of incorporation (ii) purchase shown in the ITR is less than the invoice value of imports shown in the export import data and (iii) large squared up loans

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

SHREE MARU KANSARA SONI GNATI,ANJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. ITA No. 789/RJT/2025 A.Y 17-18 Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati 4. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee explained the facts of the assessee’s case that assessee trust has filed its original return of income on 13.09.2017, declaring nil income, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the proceedings under section

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

delay is condoned in filing the\nappeal.\nPage 3 of 21\nITA No.185/RJT/2025\nBabubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya L/h of Late Smt. Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya\n6. Brief facts, as discernible from the orders of lower authorities are that the\nassessee Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya (PAN-GDQPS7714N) being an\nindividual filed its return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17,\ndeclaring total

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

condone the delay. 6. Brief facts qua the issue, on merit, are that assessee has filed return of income on 03.07.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 1,56,860/- for the year under consideration. As per the information available with the department and on enquiry, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee has made cash deposit amounting

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.

delay is hereby condoned. 8. Now we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 9. That the Assessee is in appeal before us. Ld. AR of the Assessee has drown our attention to the first para of Ld. PCIT’s order in which Ld. PCIT has mentioned that the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and the assessment

VINOD LALJIBHAI VADSOLA,TIMBADI vs. ITO, WARD-1, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 939/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vinod Laljibhai Vadsola Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vill. Timbadi, Tal: Morbi- Morbi-363 641 Vs. 363 641 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alnpv 3995 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Cit(A)”, Dated 09.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” Dated 25.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Holding Assessment Proceedings As Valid Through: A. The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been Issued By The Ito, Ward-1, Morbi In Violation Of The Provisions Of Sec. 151A Of Act & The Ita No. 939/Rjt/2024 A.Y.17-18 Vinod L. Vadsola

151(ii) of the Act. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in upholding addition of Rs.26,28,000/- u/s 69A of the Act for unexplained investment in LLP. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in upholding addition of Rs.9

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)

151 of the Act and the scheme notified by the CBDT [Faceless Scheme notified from 29.03.2022 (supra)] which legal issue, which we will deal first. 8. We note that on this legal issue there are divergent views expressed by different Hon’ble High Courts. However, it is noted that on this issue the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court i.e. Madras

MITESHKUMAR DAYALJIBHAI PABARI,BHATIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 420 /Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Miteshkumar Dayaljibhai Pabari Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, International C/O Dayaljibhai Pabari, Shreeji Catlery Vs. Taxation Rajkot, Stores, Main Bajar, Bhatiya, Devbhoomi Dwarka, Room No. 312, Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Dwarka-361315(Gujarat) Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bctpp7290M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay and non- submission of form, even the not taxable income and even provided the explanations with necessary details, explanation and supporting documents. The passed order is erroneous, against the principle of nature of justice and against the provision of law, liable to quash and set aside. (2) Learned A.O. erred in law as well facts by initiating proceeding

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

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MORBI vs. M/S. KISHAN PLUS MINARALS, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (In ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.02/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Cent.Cir.2 M/S.Kishan Plus Minerals बनाम Rajkot. Jetpar Road, Nr. Pavadiyali Temple, Jasmatgadh Vs. Morbi. Pan : Aaqfk4689P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Counsel राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 (Originally Heard Refixed On 05.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

delay is condoned 6. Now first, we shall adjudicate, the Revenue`s appeal in ITA No.124/RJT/2021. We advert to the relevant facts. The assessee has e-filed his return of Income, on 13.10.2018, declaring total income at Rs. 0/- The assessee has shown total business income of Rs. 10,04,597/- and also claimed the set-off of brought forward

DHAVAL MAHESHBHAI GANATRA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Dhaval Maheshbhai Ganatra, Income Tax Officer, Puka Park, Vs. Ward 3(1)(1), B/H. Hudco Police Chowky, Rajkot. Kothariya Main Road, Rajkot-360002. Pan: Aompg8373G

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in pursuance to the judgment of Hon’ble SC in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in 125 taxmann.com 151 and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4. At the outset, we note that the quantum addition made by the authority below has already been

SHRI TULSHIBHAI POLABHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 93/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, 2-Bombay Housing Society, Rajkot-1, Meghdhara, University Road, Rajkot. Opp. G. K. Dholakiya, Rajkot

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in pursuance to the judgment of Hon’ble SC in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In reported in 125 taxmann.com 151 and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. First, we take up ITA No. 93/AHD/2021 in case of Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya 2.1 The assessee

SHRI DHIRENDRA NARBHERAM SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 2 (3) (5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

delay. Accordingly, we condone the same in pursuance to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re reported in 125 taxmann.com 151 and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order

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

SHRI NARESH RAMJI BHANUSHALI,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 295/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri Naresh Ramji The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Bhanushali Ward-1, Gandhidham Vs. T. No.1, Plot No.257, Ward 8A, Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aewpb8042H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri V. J. Boricha, D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/02/2023 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 24.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Rajkot (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Gandhidham Under Section

delay is condoned. 3. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 4. Before the Ld. AO, the addition was made under Section 69C of the Act for development expenses to the tune of Rs.7,42,396/-, addition of Rs.21,000/- under Section

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