CLAYMINE MICRONS LLP,WANKANER vs. PRINCIPAL CIT 1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 216/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns Llp Vs. Pcit Survey No. 59 At Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 Pan/Gir No.: Aamfc4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026

133(6) (Acknowledgements for the dated 19.04.2021 & 20.04.2021 is submitted in annexure A). List of all the 19 partners mentioned above along with PAN, details of Capital and amount of capital received are being submitted in tabular format in Annexure B. 5. Vide your notice dated 19.04.2021, as per para "d" your good self has stated that

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133(6) of the Act to the above mentioned parties but no response was received. Thereafter, a summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued to all the parties. In response to the summon, the parties mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the above table came forward and their statements were recorded. The AO found

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133(6) of the Act to the above mentioned parties but no response was received. Thereafter, a summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued to all the parties. In response to the summon, the parties mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the above table came forward and their statements were recorded. The AO found

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133(6) of the Act to the above mentioned parties but no response was received. Thereafter, a summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued to all the parties. In response to the summon, the parties mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the above table came forward and their statements were recorded. The AO found

KETAN GORI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(10), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.42/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ketan Gori The Pr.Cit बनाम Plot No.3009 Jamnagar. Gidc Phase-Iii Vs. Dared. Pan : Ahppg 5892 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

6. In response to the notice of the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee submitted its written submissions along with documentary evidences, which are reproduced by the ld. Pr. CIT in the revision order. The assessee submitted before the learned PCIT that revision proceeding are mere change of opinion and without bringing anything new on the record. During the assessment proceedings

ASHOK HIRPARA, DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. SANJAY GULABRAI KUNDALIA, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.66/Rjt/2025 & C.O. No. 10/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia बनाम Tax, Jamnagar Khambhaliya Circle-1, Vs. Highway, Sikkarpatiya, Jamnagar Sikka, Jamnagar Pan: Acypk3888Q Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia Jamnagar Khambhaliya Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Highway, Sikkarpatiya, Circle-1, Jamnagar Sikka, Jamnagar Pan: Acypk3888Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Respondent) : (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K.D. Sheth, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2025 Order Per: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 10.12.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Dcit Vs.Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia

section 133(6) of the Act, the respective parties filed the confirmations before the assessing officer. The assessee also filed the bank statement before the assessing officer. The assessee also submitted before the assessing officer, that most of the transactions are through account payee cheques and also stated the in appropriate cases TDS DCIT VS.Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia ITA No.66 /RJT/2025

ABHAY HARGOVINDBHAI PATEL,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

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

section 144 of the Act. No return of\nincome (ROI) was filed by the assessee, even after issuance of various statutory\nnotices. The questionnaire was issued online by the assessing officer, however,\nno response was given by the assessee and the Bank statement was procured\nunder 133(6) of the Act, by the assessing officer to examine the sources

DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. VASANTBHAI MULJIBHAI KANANI, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowed Rs. 3,47,91,594/-, by the assessing officer, and added to the total taxable income of the assessee for the year under consideration. DCIT Vs. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani ITA No.124 /RJT/2025 and 08/RJT/2025 5 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted

MANOJBHAI ARVINDBHAI PAREKH,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 385 /Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh The Acit Of I. T. Circle – 2(1), Shreeji Giriraj Trading, 19-Giriraj Vs. Rajkot – 360001 Chamber, Old Gadhiwas Soni Bazar, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp1471C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to conduct further necessary inquiry, which the assessing officer has failed to do so. Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh v. ACIT ITA No.385/Rjt/2023 AY. 2017-18 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, further stated that before the assessing officer, assessee has furnished, copy of the bills, and vouchers and audited financial statements, including

THE ITO, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S 2D ENTERPRISE,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

6,01,424/- on unsecured loans. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that as per section 36(1)(iii), the deemed interest is on consequential basis and therefore the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the same on these unsecured loans. The Ld. DR submitted that the entire money trail was detailed by the Assessing Officer after inquiry under Section 133

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)

disallowance in the assessment proceedings; Hence, such ‘illegal cash payment transactions” is added and abetted by the assessee and his associates whereby the purchaser deposits the differential cash amount in the bank a/c of the assessee. The assessee is contacted by the seller about the said deposit or informed by the purchaser about it. The assessee verifies the deposits

HARUNBHAI NOORMAMD JINDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(7), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 407/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Harunbhai Noormamd Jindani The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(7), Kishan Chowk, Behind Bodyg, Vs. Jamnagar-Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar - 361001 Jamnagar-361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxpj4114C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, 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 20.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 Of The Act, On 11.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 matches with the information already available in AIMs in ITBA Module. The following accounts have been found in the name of the assessee: Sr. Bank name Account No No. (1) The Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Grain 001010100022173 Market Branch (2) Department of Post 1623606655 8. The assessee had failed to file

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, MORBI vs. M/S. RANG CERA COAT, , MORBI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Rang Cera Coat, Ward-4, 8-A, National Highway, Morbi Morbi Pan :Aalfr 1616 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2023

133(6) of the Act, the said party had confirmed the sales made to the assessee during the year. It was pointed out that the witness of the Assessing Officer himself had thus not confirmed the stand of the Assessing Officer. The assessee further pointed out that cross-examination of M/s. Parth Chem Impex Pvt. Ltd. sought by the assessee

DHRUV PRINT PACK INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

6 during the survey action was not recorded in the books of accounts when the partner has admitted it. The learned PCIT also noticed that the disclosure has been made by the partner, after examining the noting made in a note book and loose papers found and seized from the office premises of the assessee, during the survey proceedings

THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA vs. SHRI JUVANSINH JORUBHA JADEJA,, DWARKA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 133(6) of the Act were issued on the addresses provided by the assessee. Notices were returned un-served by the Postal Authorities in respect of two of the Sundry Creditors. Till the finalisat6ion of the Assessment Order, the assessee did not file any details and, therefore, the Assessing Officer made disallowance

A.C.I.T CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT vs. SANSKAR DEVELOPERS, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection (CO ) filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 242/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Assisstant Commissioner Of Income- Sanskar Developers Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No. 311, Shop No. 1, Shri Raj Complex, 1- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Madhav Park, B/H. Vijay Hostel, Course Road, Rajkot – 360001 150Ft Ring Road, Rajkot – 360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackfs 2310 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

133(6) of the Act to the third party, to make enquiry. The assessee submitted the documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer at the fag-end when the Assessing Officer did not have any option but to complete the assessment without having conducted any proper enquiry. The ld DR also submitted that on appeal, by the assessee, before Ld.CIT

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance in the assessment proceedings; Hence,\nsuch 'illegal cash payment transactions” is added and abetted by the assessee and his\nassociates whereby the purchaser deposits the differential cash amount in the bank a/c of\nthe assessee. The assessee is contacted by the seller about the said deposit or informed by\nthe purchaser about it. The assessee verifies the deposits

SAURASHTRA CEMENT LIMITED,PORBANDAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.307/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Near Railway Station, बनाम Income Tax, Jamnagar, Saurashtra Cement Factory, Jamnagar Vs. P.O. Ranavav, Adityana Road, Porbandar, Gujarat-360560 Pan : Aahfs5211J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld.Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2026 Order

section 263 of the Act and therefore, ld PCIT set aside the assessment order to the extent of the issues mentioned and discussed in the foregoing paragraphs and directed the assessing officer to examine the genuineness of the documents submitted by the assessee during the course of revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, by issuing notices u/s 133(6

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.

133 (Jaipur – Trib.) 4. Rajmoti Road Movers Vs. PCIT-1, Rajkot On going through these judgements and various judgements of different High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court, we are inclined to derive a inference that when the delay is not attributable to the gross negligence or carelessness of the Assessee and when there is sufficient and reasonable cause