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

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

10. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA No.305/Rjt/2018 with 18 others A.Y. 2012-13 & others 5 11. The learned AR before us has challenged the penalty levied by the authorities below under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on merit as well as on the technical ground

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)

10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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)

10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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)

10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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)

10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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)

10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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)

10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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)

10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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)

10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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)

10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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)

10,67,798/- u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 particularly when there is no case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particular and income declare in revised return was accepted. 3. Not following the decision of ACIT v. Ashok Raj Nath (19 ITR (trib) 70) of Delhi Tribunal, Bhavin Kumar M. Dagli (ITA No. 1179/Ahd/2011) dated

SHRI KRISHANMOHAN RAMWADH SHINGH,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR

In the result appeal, of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

U/s. 271(l)(c) has been imposed. 3. Also in citation of Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd, (ITAT Pune) income Tax Appeal no 582/PN/2009, Date of Pronouncement A.Y. 2012-13 2 12.06.2015 it was observed that since No penalty was levied by the A.O, on similar disallowance in the preceeding assessment year, therefore, the penalty cannot

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

10(38) of the Act. Thus, it is transpired that the income was duly disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income. If at all the penalty was to be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same can be under the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

10 respectable witnesses in his defence before the Assessing Officer to establish the contents of the so called affidavit as true nor their affidavits were filed. Those two persons were the actual witnesses of the search proceedings and were from the same locality. Thus, the copy of the so called affidavit not supported by any evidence had no evidentiary value

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

10 respectable witnesses in his defence before the Assessing Officer to establish the contents of the so called affidavit as true nor their affidavits were filed. Those two persons were the actual witnesses of the search proceedings and were from the same locality. Thus, the copy of the so called affidavit not supported by any evidence had no evidentiary value

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

10 respectable witnesses in his defence before the Assessing Officer to establish the contents of the so called affidavit as true nor their affidavits were filed. Those two persons were the actual witnesses of the search proceedings and were from the same locality. Thus, the copy of the so called affidavit not supported by any evidence had no evidentiary value

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

10 respectable witnesses in his defence before the Assessing Officer to establish the contents of the so called affidavit as true nor their affidavits were filed. Those two persons were the actual witnesses of the search proceedings and were from the same locality. Thus, the copy of the so called affidavit not supported by any evidence had no evidentiary value

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

10 respectable witnesses in his defence before the Assessing Officer to establish the contents of the so called affidavit as true nor their affidavits were filed. Those two persons were the actual witnesses of the search proceedings and were from the same locality. Thus, the copy of the so called affidavit not supported by any evidence had no evidentiary value