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

10==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\nH\n21. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal, before the learned CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty\nimposed by the assessing officer. The ld.CIT(A) has distinguished all the\njudgments cited by the assessee

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

10] “15. Further, in the subsequent two years i.e. AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14, the AO himself has dropped the penalty proceedings, which also clearly proves that the AO also believes that he does not have any case for levy of penalty on the Appellant. 15.1 Reliance is placed on the decision of ACIT us Nortel Networks

SHRI RAJNIKANT HARGOVINDDAS SANADIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (3)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

20-12-2018 at the fag end of the assessment proceedings declaring total income of Rs. 5,13,890/-. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment determining the total income at Rs. 14,42,470/- vide order dated 26-12-2018. 2.1. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated

SHRI RAJNIKANT HARGOVINDDAS SANADIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (3)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

20-12-2018 at the fag end of the assessment proceedings declaring total income of Rs. 5,13,890/-. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment determining the total income at Rs. 14,42,470/- vide order dated 26-12-2018. 2.1. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated

DILESHKUMAR GORDHANBHAI PATEL,ADIPUR vs. DCIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

10%, 20% or 30% with the Assessing Officer. He contended that there was no provision not to levy penalty; and as for the admission of the assessee qualifying as undisclosed income, he stated that, in terms of accounting, the provisions of Section 271AAB(3)(c)(a)(A) are satisfied as far as the definition of undisclosed income is concerned

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)

section 147 of the Act, itself is not in consonance with law, then all the subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore, we quash the following penalties imposed by the assessing officer, for assessment year 2015-16, being ab initio void: Page

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)

section 147 of the Act, itself is not in consonance with law, then all the subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore, we quash the following penalties imposed by the assessing officer, for assessment year 2015-16, being ab initio void: Page

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)

section 147 of the Act, itself is not in consonance with law, then all the subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore, we quash the following penalties imposed by the assessing officer, for assessment year 2015-16, being ab initio void: Page

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)

section 147 of the Act, itself is not in consonance with law, then all the subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore, we quash the following penalties imposed by the assessing officer, for assessment year 2015-16, being ab initio void: Page

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)

section 147 of the Act, itself is not in consonance with law, then all the subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore, we quash the following penalties imposed by the assessing officer, for assessment year 2015-16, being ab initio void: Page

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)

section 147 of the Act, itself is not in consonance with law, then all the subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore, we quash the following penalties imposed by the assessing officer, for assessment year 2015-16, being ab initio void: Page

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)

section 147 of the Act, itself is not in consonance with law, then all the subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore, we quash the following penalties imposed by the assessing officer, for assessment year 2015-16, being ab initio void: Page

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)

section 147 of the Act, itself is not in consonance with law, then all the subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore, we quash the following penalties imposed by the assessing officer, for assessment year 2015-16, being ab initio void: Page

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)

section 147 of the Act, itself is not in consonance with law, then all the subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore, we quash the following penalties imposed by the assessing officer, for assessment year 2015-16, being ab initio void: Page

SMT. BIJAL DARSHITBHAI PUJARA,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 292/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Smt. Bijal Darshitbhai Pujara vs. Dy. CIT 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in - 1. Confirming Penalty of Rs. 10

M/S. DHARTI TREDERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the penalty for non-appearance is directed to be restricted to the first default on part of the assessee in not complying with the notice of hearing i

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

20-04-2023 Date of pronouncement : 26-04-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, arises from order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22-12-2022, in proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 32/Rjt/2023

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

section 147 of the Act, itself is not in consonance with law, then all the\nsubsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that\nillegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore, we quash the following\npenalties imposed by the assessing officer, for assessment year 2015-16, being\nab initio void:\nPage 13 of 24\nITA

ATMAN RAJNIKANT BHESDADIYA L/R. LATE SHRI RAJNIKANT LAVJIBHAI BHEDADIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

20% of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/-) u/s. 271AAB(1)(b) and Penalty @ 30% of Rs.46,957/- (Rs.14,087/-) u/s. 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. Thus total penalty of Rs.1,64,087/- was levied. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed addition with the following observations: “5.0 I have carefully considered the Penalty order of the AO, the written submissions of the appellant and the rival contentions. Though the appellant has preferred a total of 09 grounds, the core issue Kanjibhai Bhimjibhai Rangani vs. ITO Asst.Year