PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

u/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 18. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted the following written submission before the assessing officer, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced as under: "15. As regard the levy of penalty on disallowance commission paid

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

u/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 18. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted the following written submission before the assessing officer, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced as under: "15. As regard the levy of penalty on disallowance commission paid

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

u/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 18. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted the following written submission before the assessing officer, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced as under: "15. As regard the levy of penalty on disallowance commission paid

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

deduction, there was obviously no question of imposing any penalty upon assessee – Held, Yes [Para 7] [ in favour of assessee]” I.T.A No. 172/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 8 M/s. Shree Rajmoti Industries Vs.DCIT 9. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we have no hesitation in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,18,810/- levied u/s. 271

SHRI LAJAI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI,LAJAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

deduction u/s. 24 of the Act and accepted the addition of Rs. 1,06,575/- as the rental income. The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as to the "Act"] at Rs.35,55,728/-on the alleged ground that the assessee has not disclosed the income earned of Rs.1,04,61,096/- from the undisclosed foreign account either in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) or 153A of the Act. The penalty confirmed

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

u/s 44BBB of the Act .that while doing so there was no change in the Book results or other figures. • That similar benefit was availed by the assessee in subsequent years also A.Y 12-13 & 13-14 , and similar adverse inference drawn by the AO , but no penalty was levied. The relevant portion of the order

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

deduction of Dividend Income of Rs. 47,70,000/- u/s 80P(2)(d) earned from the investment in Co- operative Society. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

deduction u/s 80JJA of Rs.20,70,660/-. The scrutiny assessment for the year under consideration in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 23.12.2016, accepting the nil income. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act, after approval from the Jt. Commissioner of income tax, Range, Junagadh

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO 3 (1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.200/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Bhakti Nagar Co Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Society Ltd. (Bhaktinagar Circle, Meghani Rang Bhavan, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot) Rong Road, A D Vyas & Co, Charted Accounts, Kotecha Rajkot - 360001 Nagar Main Road, Opp Kotecha Girl’S School, Off Kalawad Road. Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2363M (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction and the same has been treated as income from other sources. The same is added back to the income of the assessee in the year under consideration by passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T. Act on 10.06.2019. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI HARESHBHAI J. FALDU,JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 वष"

penalty u/s 271(l)(cJ in respect of undisclosed income referred to in Sec. 271AAA(1) of the Act. Hence, it is prayed that the additional ground being wholly legal in nature can be raised at any stage of proceedings and may kindly be admitted for adjudication in the interest of justice. 3. It was pleaded by the assessee

RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,RAJKOT vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), , RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us In This Regard Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajkot-1 Has Erred In Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(L)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Imposing A Penalty Of Rs. 18,50,900 On The Appellant Despite The Fact That The Claim For The Deduction Was Bona-Fide, The Details Furnished For The Claim For Allowance Were Not Found To Be Inaccurate & That There Was No Deliberate Attempt To Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars On The Part Of The Appellant Assesse. The Ao'S Action Being Erroneous On Facts & In Law, The Appellant Prays That The Penalty Of Rs. 18,50,900 Be Deleted..

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 imposing a penalty of Rs. 18,50,900 on the appellant despite the fact that the claim for the deduction

DINESHCHANDRA N. SHAH,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act on account of concealment/furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 5. The assessee during the penalty proceedings contended that he failed to disclose the interest income in the income tax return inadvertently. 6. Similarly the assessee contended that he has actually incurred an expense of Rs. 24,612 on account of salary

SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHWARLAL GOGIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 Now, on the first issue, in various cases it has been held that if asset mortgaged has been transferred, it would amount to capital gains in hands of the owner of asset, even if no consideration has been received on such transfer. In the case of CIT vs. Attili

M/S. ANUKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.40,460/-. Without accepting that the Ld. A.O. has passed order without giving adequate time and opportunity although the assessee specifically requested for the same. The penalty needs deletion. 5 Without prejudice, no reasonable opportunity has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) at appellate stage. The same needs annulment

SHRI RAMESHBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE CIT (A)-3, RAJKOT, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) dated 22-12-2010 was initiated for concealment of income. The proceedings were kept in abeyance as the assessee had preferred an appeal before the C.I.T. (A) - IV, Rajkot. ITA No.1734/Rjt/2018 (Rameshbhai B. Rangani vs. ITO] A.Y. 2007-08 - 4 - 3.2 The Ld. CIT (A)-IV, Rajkot vide order dated

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRICT CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 271(1)(c). By any stretch of imagination, mining as incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particualrs. 11. Moreover the Honorable Tribunal In appellant own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 deleted the penalty on the ground that the case is covered by the CIT Vs. Reliance Peto Products Pvt Ltd wherein held that “ merely because

M/S. UNITED ENGINEERS, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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. 4. The learned AR for the assessee, at the outset

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

U/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,51,702/- without considering that there is no adequate time and opportunity although the assessee specifically requested for the same. The penalty needs deletion. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not bringing any cogent material justifying levy of penalty. The penalty needs deletion. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred