BHAVESHBHAI HARIBHAI KANANI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partially allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.233/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम/ Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Kanani Income Tax Officer Plot No. E211, Gidc Phase-2, Vs Ward – 2(10), Jamnagar Dared, Jamnagar, Gujarat - 361008 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypk5085F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

condone the delay. 5. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding in addition of Rs.39,82,206/- made by Id.AO by estimating profit @4% on gross sales turnover and in adopting profit rate of 4% without considering nature of business, past history

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

SHRI VIPULBHAI YOGESHKUMAR TELI,CHALALA VILLAGE, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD 3(1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay is condoned. 4. On merit, the solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.15,00,000/-, cash deposit in bank account. 5. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before

BHARAT NATHABHAI BARAD,VERAVAL, GIR SOMNATH vs. ITO WARD-4, VERAVAL

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.411/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharat Nathabhai Barad Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Vinesh Enterprise, Ward-4, Village: Savani, Tal.: Veraval, Veraval. Veraval - Kodinar Highway, Dist.: Gir Somnath-362 268. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avjpb6301K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 253 of the Act but the prescribed time limit of 60 days to avail such remedy was already expired at that point of time. On further deliberation, I have been given to understand that he appeal can be filed before Your Honours with the prayer for condonation of delay in view of bonafide sufficient reasonable cause involved

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

91,763/- by way of unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and thereby levying taxes at rates u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 6. On merits, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the action of the ITO, wd-2(1)(1), Rajkot in making addition of Rs.20,00,000/- by way of unexplained investment

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

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

condoned the delay in filing appeal by 363 days. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.08.2017 declaring therein total income at Rs.13,53,640/-. The return of income has been processed u/s. 143(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The case was selected for complete scrutiny

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)

91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee did not match with the cash deposits, therefore AO issued show cause 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL

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)

91,89,290*1.63%=1,50,000/-), and the amount of Rs. 90,39,290/- ( Rs.91,89,290- Rs. 1,50,000) was treated by the assessing officer as unexplained cash credit during the F.Y 2016-17, relevant to assessment year 2017–18 u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer

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

91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee did not match with the cash deposits, therefore AO issued show cause 6 BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI

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

91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee did not match with the cash deposits, therefore AO issued show cause 6 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee did not match with the cash deposits, therefore AO issued show cause 6 BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI