SHAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal in case of quantum proceedings, in ITA No. 441/Rjt/2024 and 214 days delay in filing the appeal in ITA No. 442/Rjt/2024 ( penalty appeal u/s 271

ARJAN LILA GORANIYA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.378/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Arjan Lila Goraniya Vs. Ito Ward 2 (4), Inajiya Vadi Vistar, Porbandar - 360575 Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ ./Pan/Gir No.: Bbwpg1554P (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and bad-in-law. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T.Act

SHRI BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,VILLAGE MEGHPAR, TAL. ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.418 & 388/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) Pan : Apepr3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

condonation of delay are similar and identical in both appeals. The Ld Counsel for the assessee explained the reasons of delay in both these appeals stating that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC had passed order u/s 250 for A.Y. 2009-10 on 29/09/2022 confirming penalty u/s. 271

BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,ANJAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.418 & 388/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) Pan : Apepr3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

condonation of delay are similar and identical in both appeals. The Ld Counsel for the assessee explained the reasons of delay in both these appeals stating that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC had passed order u/s 250 for A.Y. 2009-10 on 29/09/2022 confirming penalty u/s. 271

NILESH ASHANAND THACKER,BHUJ vs. ITO WARD 4, GANDHIDHAM (BHUJ)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in- law. That the appellant craves leave

DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,JUNAGADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 239/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2008-09) बनाम Damjibhai Lekharjibhai Thavrani Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Vs. Ito Ward – 1 Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Opp. Income Tax Office, Bhootnath Rajkumar College, Chamber, Rajkot 360001 Junagadh – 362001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aeypt7701B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty 8,40,37,155/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable without condoning the delay

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

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

condoned the delay in filing appeal by 1444 days. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed return of Income on 30-03-2016 showing NIL income. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny and the assessment was completed by the AO and remaining income after claim of deduction u/s

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that order passed by the CIT(A) never reached to the assessee because the online portal displays E-mail Address and Mobile Number which belonged to the "Tax Return Preparer, who did not inform to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee received physically penalty notice issued u/s

RAMJIBHAI DEVJIBHAI MOKARIYA,PORBANDAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2(4), PORBANDAR

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued then assessee came to know, therefore, delay has occurred in filing appeal before Tribunal. The appellant prays that the delay was not deliberate and nor was any intention to mislead and was due to circumstances beyond control of the appellant. The appellant therefore prays that the delay in filing appeal

M/S. VINAYAKA REALTY (G) PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against this penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The Appeal was listed for hearing on 14/01/2021, 25/06/2021 and 26/07/2021 but the assessee has not responded to the hearing notices nor filed any written submission. It is, therefore the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

271(1)(c) of the Act is void as no specific notice u/s 274 has been issued by the AO. c) On the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order is bad in law as the approval of JCIT dated 24.05.2017 was an approval without application of mind. 6. It is well settled that an assessee can raise

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

271(1)(c) of the Act is void as no specific notice u/s 274 has been issued by the AO. c) On the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order is bad in law as the approval of JCIT dated 24.05.2017 was an approval without application of mind. 6. It is well settled that an assessee can raise

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

271(1)(c) of the Act is void as no specific notice u/s 274 has been issued by the AO. c) On the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order is bad in law as the approval of JCIT dated 24.05.2017 was an approval without application of mind. 6. It is well settled that an assessee can raise

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

271(1)(c) of the Act is void as no specific notice u/s 274 has been issued by the AO. c) On the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order is bad in law as the approval of JCIT dated 24.05.2017 was an approval without application of mind. 6. It is well settled that an assessee can raise

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

271(1)(c) of the Act is void as no specific notice u/s 274 has been issued by the AO. c) On the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order is bad in law as the approval of JCIT dated 24.05.2017 was an approval without application of mind. 6. It is well settled that an assessee can raise

SHRI ASHWINKUMAR V. MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed in limine

Bench: Us. This Clearly Shows That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Above Appeal.

u/s. 271[1][c] and therefore no penalty is leviable. 6. The Ld. A.O. and the Ld. CIT[A] in this regard proceeded on erroneous presumptions and premises and the penalty levied deserves to be deleted. 7. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds stated here above. 6. However there is a delay

BHAVESH ISHWARLAL PANCHASARA,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Bhavesh Ishwarlal बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Panchasara Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot /Vs. 1, Mehulnagar Main Road, Near Khodiyar Temple, Rajkot-360 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aodpp 1375 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) ha wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad- in-law. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter

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)

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated for concealing the particulars of income." 3.12.2. Same finding has been given by the A.O. for the other assessment years in all the case of above mentioned appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed detailed submission against the additions made. The appellant contended that they are engaged in the business

BHAGU BHURABHAI VARCHAND,KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,GDHAM, KUTCH

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957, 958 & 959/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2021-22) Bhagu Bhurabhai Varchand The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, H-21/Near Temple Dagara, Vs. Gdham Dagala/Dagara Madhapar S.O Aayakar Bhavan, Near Leva Patel Madhapar 370020, Gujarat India Hospital, Mundra, Bhuj Gujarat 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcppv8921D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 : 13/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

271 AAC (1) of the Act, and assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 959/Rjt/2025 pertains to penalty u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Since, the assessee’s quantum appeal in ITA No. 957/Rjt/2025 is remitted back to the file of AO therefore, there penalties do not have any leg to stand. 7. I note that