MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment

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, 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 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 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

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

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

BHANUBHAI D. SHIYAL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , MORBI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

investment in the hand of the appellant remains unexplained. Grounds 1 to 3 are disallowed.” 5. Aggrieved against the same

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