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

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

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

ANILA NARENDRA SANGHANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes\nOrder is pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2025

u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act\") and a penalty\norder passed by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, relevant\nto the Assessment Year 2013-14.\nITA No. 322 & 323/Rjt/2025\nAntila Narendra Sanghani\n2.\nAt the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

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

SHRI BECHARBHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI VASOYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) dated 07.01.2025 received from\nthe Assessing Officer.\n6. That due to above reasons, there is delay in filing of ITAT appeal.\n7. That, there is no mala fide intentions to late filing of an appeal to the ITAT.”\n3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the sufficient reasons stating\nthat assessee is a most

ANILA NARENDRA SANGHANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAMANAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes\nOrder is pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2025

u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act") and a penalty\norder passed by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, relevant\nto the Assessment Year 2013-14.\nITA No. 322 & 323/Rjt/2025\nAntila Narendra Sanghani\n2.\nAt the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

KRANTI ELECTRIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (4) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(C) also\ninitiated.\n3 THAT I had to prepare and file the appeal before Hon'ble I.T.A.T., Rajkot on or before\n31st Jan 2025 but there is delay in filing the appeal for about 133 days as I have not been\ninformed by my office clerk and when I came to know, I consulted

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

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

DHIRAJLAL NATHUBHAI BHUT,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

u/s:\n271(1)(b) of the act.\n7. The appellant craves for leave to add, alter or withdraw one or more grounds\nof appeal.\"\n3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 230 days. The\nassessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to\ncondone the delay. The learned Counsel adverted my attention

KRANTI ELECTRIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (4) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(C) also\ninitiated.\n3 THAT I had to prepare and file the appeal before Hon'ble I.T.A.T., Rajkot on or before\n31st Jan 2025 but there is delay in filing the appeal for about 133 days as I have not been\ninformed by my office clerk and when I came to know, I consulted

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