ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment, there should first be explicit and unambiguous evidence of Investment. Its existence should not be doubted or questioned and after first identifying the evidence of Investment, question comes whether it is explained or not and thereafter, satisfaction of the authority follows as per his wisdom looking to the facts, materials and evidence available on records. Hon'ble High

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment, there should first be explicit and unambiguous evidence of Investment. Its existence should not be doubted or questioned and after first identifying the evidence of Investment, question comes whether it is explained or not and thereafter, satisfaction of the authority follows as per his wisdom looking to the facts, materials and evidence available on records. Hon'ble High

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

disallowances aggregating to Rs. 8,80,27,385/- should not be made u/s. 69A, 69B & 37 of the Act. In this connection, we in addition to our earlier replies in the same issue further submit as under: As regard the allegation of unexplained investment

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

disallowances aggregating to Rs. 8,80,27,385/- should not be made u/s. 69A, 69B & 37 of the Act. In this connection, we in addition to our earlier replies in the same issue further submit as under: As regard the allegation of unexplained investment

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

unexplained investment in property at Ahmadabad. 44.1 At the outset we note that we have deleted the addition on account of undisclosed investment in the property located at Ahmadabad vide Para No. 43 of this order. Therefore the addition made by assessing officer on the ground of rental income of such property situated in Ahmadabad is also liable

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

unexplained investment in property at Ahmadabad. 44.1 At the outset we note that we have deleted the addition on account of undisclosed investment in the property located at Ahmadabad vide Para No. 43 of this order. Therefore the addition made by assessing officer on the ground of rental income of such property situated in Ahmadabad is also liable

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

unexplained investment in property at Ahmadabad. 44.1 At the outset we note that we have deleted the addition on account of undisclosed investment in the property located at Ahmadabad vide Para No. 43 of this order. Therefore the addition made by assessing officer on the ground of rental income of such property situated in Ahmadabad is also liable

SHRI JAYANTILAL BACHUBHAI THUMAR,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (4), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.68/Rjt/2020 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Shri Jayantilal Bachubhai Income-Tax Officer, Thumar, Vs. Ward-2(1)(4), Tirth Complex, Rakot. Opp. Raj Petrol Pump, Canal Road, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Abkpt3852C

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A). 5. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that to invoke the provision of section 69 of the Act, there should be 3 essential conditions which must be satisfied. The first

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

unexplained investments, disallowed interest, purchase of cheques/DDs, assessment validity under section 153A, deemed rental income, premature surrender of insurance policies, unexplained cash credits, unaccounted stock of gold bullion, and advances to friends and relatives.", "held": "The Tribunal, in most grounds, followed its previous decisions in the assessee's own case, dismissing the Revenue's appeals on grounds that were found

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

unexplained investments, disallowance of interest, purchase of cheques/DDs, validity of section 153A assessment, deemed rental income, unexplained cash credits, and unaccounted stock of gold bullion were addressed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were generally in favour of the assessee, especially when the revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence or controvert the assessee's claims.", "result": "Revenue

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment and thereafter leamed CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with I.T.A Nos. 44 to 46/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 Page No 7 M/s. Champion Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT by the learned CIT(A) and ought

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment and thereafter leamed CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with I.T.A Nos. 44 to 46/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 Page No 7 M/s. Champion Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT by the learned CIT(A) and ought

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment and thereafter leamed CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with I.T.A Nos. 44 to 46/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 Page No 7 M/s. Champion Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT by the learned CIT(A) and ought

KRISHNA DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 1, RAJKOT

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

unexplained investment / expense made by the assessee, there could be a presumption of such expenditure. In such event also it is held that only profit on suppressed sales could be brought to tax [CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja [2008] 171 Taxman 406 (Gujarat)]. Hence, in such cases, both the Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional Page

KRISHNA DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, RAJKOT

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

unexplained investment / expense made by the assessee, there could be a presumption of such expenditure. In such event also it is held that only profit on suppressed sales could be brought to tax [CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja [2008] 171 Taxman 406 (Gujarat)]. Hence, in such cases, both the Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. KRISHNA DEVELOPERS, RAJKOT

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

unexplained investment / expense made by the assessee, there could be a presumption of such expenditure. In such event also it is held that only profit on suppressed sales could be brought to tax [CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja [2008] 171 Taxman 406 (Gujarat)]. Hence, in such cases, both the Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional Page

HARESHBHAI ARJUNDAS GURBANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD 2(10), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.611/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hareshbhai Arjundas Gurbani Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. 109/110 City Aarced, Nr Dsp Jamnagar Bunglow, Tin Batti, Jamnagar 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqspg3832M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/ 03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm;

Disallowance u/s 69A. The registree of the Bench bring into our notice that the appeal is late by 36 days. That Ld AR of the assessee submitted. That the assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal along with an affidavit. That the main reason for delay in filing of an appeal that

RADHE DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, , RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 549 & 550/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Radhe Developers Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 . Office No. 47, Ankur Commercial Center, Opp. Income Tax Office, Amruta Swaminarayan Gurukul, Estate Building, Near Girnar Gondal Road, Rajkot Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfr3387E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

investments are available on records, it has been held by the Hon'ble Guj. High Court that while dealing with addition on account of unaccounted sales, in ITA Nos.549, 550 & 687/Ahd/2024 Radhe Developers absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment/expense made by the assessee, there could be a presumption of such expenditure

RADHE DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 549 & 550/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Radhe Developers Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 . Office No. 47, Ankur Commercial Center, Opp. Income Tax Office, Amruta Swaminarayan Gurukul, Estate Building, Near Girnar Gondal Road, Rajkot Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfr3387E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

investments are available on records, it has been held by the Hon'ble Guj. High Court that while dealing with addition on account of unaccounted sales, in ITA Nos.549, 550 & 687/Ahd/2024 Radhe Developers absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment/expense made by the assessee, there could be a presumption of such expenditure