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

deposit these cash into the\naccounts of the manufacturers directly. Why has he got to route this through\nthe assessee's bank account and why would the assessee take the risk of\ncarrying cash and handing it over to the manufacturers.\n4.2 The Id. AR was also requested to furnish the list of the persons whose cash\nwas remitted

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

deposit these cash into the\naccounts of the manufacturers directly. Why has he got to route this through\nthe assessee's bank account and why would the assessee take the risk of\ncarrying cash and handing it over to the manufacturers.\n4.2 The Id. AR was also requested to furnish the list of the persons whose cash\nwas remitted

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

deposit these cash into the\naccounts of the manufacturers directly. Why has he got to route this through\nthe assessee's bank account and why would the assessee take the risk of\ncarrying cash and handing it over to the manufacturers.\n4.2 The Id. AR was also requested to furnish the list of the persons whose cash\nwas remitted

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

deposit these cash into the\naccounts of the manufacturers directly. Why has he got to route this through\nthe assessee's bank account and why would the assessee take the risk of\ncarrying cash and handing it over to the manufacturers.\n4.2 The Id. AR was also requested to furnish the list of the persons whose cash\nwas remitted

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

deposit these cash into the\naccounts of the manufacturers directly. Why has he got to route this through\nthe assessee's bank account and why would the assessee take the risk of\ncarrying cash and handing it over to the manufacturers.\n4.2 The Id. AR was also requested to furnish the list of the persons whose cash\nwas remitted

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

deposit these cash into the\naccounts of the manufacturers directly. Why has he got to route this through\nthe assessee's bank account and why would the assessee take the risk of\ncarrying cash and handing it over to the manufacturers.\n4.2 The Id. AR was also requested to furnish the list of the persons whose cash\nwas remitted

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

deposit these cash into the\naccounts of the manufacturers directly. Why has he got to route this through\nthe assessee's bank account and why would the assessee take the risk of\ncarrying cash and handing it over to the manufacturers.\n4.2 The Id. AR was also requested to furnish the list of the persons whose cash\nwas remitted

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

deposit these cash into the\naccounts of the manufacturers directly. Why has he got to route this through\nthe assessee's bank account and why would the assessee take the risk of\ncarrying cash and handing it over to the manufacturers.\n4.2 The Id. AR was also requested to furnish the list of the persons whose cash\nwas remitted

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

deposit these cash into the\naccounts of the manufacturers directly. Why has he got to route this through\nthe assessee's bank account and why would the assessee take the risk of\ncarrying cash and handing it over to the manufacturers.\n4.2 The Id. AR was also requested to furnish the list of the persons whose cash\nwas remitted

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

deposit these cash into the\naccounts of the manufacturers directly. Why has he got to route this through\nthe assessee's bank account and why would the assessee take the risk of\ncarrying cash and handing it over to the manufacturers.\n4.2 The Id. AR was also requested to furnish the list of the persons whose cash\nwas remitted

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) - - are not justified and are bad-in-law. 5. The assessee craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 18,28,550/- Condonation of Delay

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.515/Rjt/2025

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.515/Rjt/2025

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.515/Rjt/2025

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.515/Rjt/2025

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.515/Rjt/2025

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.515/Rjt/2025

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.515/Rjt/2025