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

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 a petition requesting the Bench

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

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 a petition requesting the Bench

ARJAN LILA GORANIYA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.378/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Arjan Lila Goraniya Vs. Ito Ward 2 (4), Inajiya Vadi Vistar, Porbandar - 360575 Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ ./Pan/Gir No.: Bbwpg1554P (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, then assessee came to know about the passing of the impugned order u/s 250 of the Act, on 20/03/2025. Therefore, ld. Counsel submitted that the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal took place, for which the assessee explained sufficient cause, there were no intentional latches on the part of assessee, hence delay

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, then assessee came to know about the passing of the impugned order u/s 250 of the Act, on 20/03/2025. Therefore, ld. Counsel submitted that the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal took place, for which the assessee explained sufficient cause, there were no intentional latches on the part of assessee, hence delay

SHRI BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,VILLAGE MEGHPAR, TAL. ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.418 & 388/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) Pan : Apepr3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 29.09.2022, which in turn arise out of separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 and 271(1)(c) of the Act. Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajput ITA Nos. 418 & 388 /RJT/2025 (AY : 2009-10) 2 2. The assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 388/RJT/2025 relates

BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,ANJAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.418 & 388/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) Pan : Apepr3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 29.09.2022, which in turn arise out of separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 and 271(1)(c) of the Act. Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajput ITA Nos. 418 & 388 /RJT/2025 (AY : 2009-10) 2 2. The assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 388/RJT/2025 relates

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2016-17 dated 29.06.2025 wherein it was mentioned "you had preferred appeal which has been disposed of by the 1st appellate authority, i.e. CIT(A)." On perusal of this notice, the assessee immediately approached the consultant. Therefore, in this process, the delay of 80 days has occurred, which may kindly be condoned. 4. Learned

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

condone the delay in filing of appeal for 30 days and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The grounds raised in this appeal are without prejudice to one another. 2. The Learned CIT(A)-2 erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s.271

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)

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs.20,36,554/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Nilesh A Thacker 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That

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

RAMJIBHAI DEVJIBHAI MOKARIYA,PORBANDAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2(4), PORBANDAR

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illiteracy, lack of knowledge, and reliance on a consultant, and emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte without sufficient opportunity for the assessee.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["250", "144", "147", "271(1)(c)", "249(2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

delay is condoned in filing the cross objection.\n8. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an\nIndividual. The assessee has filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.)\n2017-18, on 31/01/2018, declaring therein total income of Rs. Nil/-. The return\nof income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later

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

2. On merits, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs.60,738/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal. 3.1 The assessee vide letter dated

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

2. On merits, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs.60,738/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal. 3.1 The assessee vide letter dated

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

2. On merits, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs.60,738/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal. 3.1 The assessee vide letter dated

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

2. On merits, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs.60,738/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal. 3.1 The assessee vide letter dated

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

2. On merits, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs.60,738/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal. 3.1 The assessee vide letter dated

JAGDISHCHANDRA SHANTILAL CHHATRALIA,GUJARAT vs. ASSESING OFICER, RAJKOT

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

2,87,850 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, without considering the merits of the case. The CIT(A)'s decision\nis erroneous as it failed to appreciate that the penalty should be held in abeyance\npending the final outcome of the quantum appeal.\n2. The CIT(A)'s finding that the appellant failed