SULTANPUR JUTH SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,RAJKOT vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC (PRESENT JURIS. ACIT-DCIT CIR 1(1),, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492 & 493 & 697/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Assessment Unit, Nfac Mandali Ltd. (Present Juris. Acit-Dcit Vs. Cir-1(1) Sultanpur, At Sultanpur Tal: Gondal, Dist. It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 364470 Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaabs0194F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 5. First, we shall take two appeals in quantum proceedings, in ITA No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2024, for Assessment Year 2018-19 & 2020-21. When these two appeals were called out for hearing, Learned Counsel for the assessee, invited our attention to the order dated 31.07.2024, Passed by the Division Bench of this

SULTANPUR JUTH SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,RAJKOT vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC (PRESENT JURIS. ACIT-DICT CIR 1(1) RAJKOT), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492 & 493 & 697/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Assessment Unit, Nfac Mandali Ltd. (Present Juris. Acit-Dcit Vs. Cir-1(1) Sultanpur, At Sultanpur Tal: Gondal, Dist. It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 364470 Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaabs0194F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 5. First, we shall take two appeals in quantum proceedings, in ITA No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2024, for Assessment Year 2018-19 & 2020-21. When these two appeals were called out for hearing, Learned Counsel for the assessee, invited our attention to the order dated 31.07.2024, Passed by the Division Bench of this

SHREE KARMAL KOTADA JUTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.328/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Karmal Kotadajuth Seva Vs. The Ito Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot. Sahakarimandali Limited. Karmal Kotada, Rajkot.

section 271B of the Income tax Act.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly. The learned Counsel adverted our attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view

TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 1. 165/Rjt/2016 1997-98 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 2. 166/Rjt/2016 1998-99 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 3. 167/Rjt/2016 1999-00 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 4. 168/Rjt/2016 2000-01 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

section 143(3) r.w.s 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00 & 2000-01 respectively. Since all the cases relate to the same assessee, and the issue is identical, these matters are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. An application

TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 1. 165/Rjt/2016 1997-98 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 2. 166/Rjt/2016 1998-99 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 3. 167/Rjt/2016 1999-00 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 4. 168/Rjt/2016 2000-01 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

section 143(3) r.w.s 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00 & 2000-01 respectively. Since all the cases relate to the same assessee, and the issue is identical, these matters are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. An application

TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 1. 165/Rjt/2016 1997-98 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 2. 166/Rjt/2016 1998-99 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 3. 167/Rjt/2016 1999-00 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 4. 168/Rjt/2016 2000-01 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

section 143(3) r.w.s 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00 & 2000-01 respectively. Since all the cases relate to the same assessee, and the issue is identical, these matters are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. An application

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

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

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 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:

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 29.11.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee: 1. Ld. jurisdictional assessing officer erred in law and on facts in finalizing the assessment order without valid service of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 08.02.2018 within the statutory period of relevant assessment

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

254 CTR 228(SC) by dismissing the SLP of the revenue. Reliance also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), wherein, it is held that section 133A empowers the authority to record the statement of any person, which may be useful

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

254 CTR 228(SC) by dismissing the SLP of the revenue. Reliance also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), wherein, it is held that section 133A empowers the authority to record the statement of any person, which may be useful

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)

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non- disputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal- plea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

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

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non- disputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal- plea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non- disputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal- plea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and genuineness