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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and the penalty levied for multiple defaults is directed to be deleted. In the case Smt. Rekha Rani v. DCIT 60 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi - Trib.), the Delhi ITAT held that penalty under section

RAMKRUPA COT-GIN CORPORATION,,AT. CHHAPRA, TAL.LODHIKA, DIST.RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section of Date of issue Remarks Status No. Notice 1 142(1) 05/06/201 5 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 2 142(1) 10/06/2015 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 3 142(1) 15/07/2015 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 4 142(1) 18/01/2016 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 4. Since all the notices remained uncompiled with, the assessment

SMT. BHARTI PINAKIN BAJAJ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 131/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 Bharati Pinakin Bajaj, I.T.O., Hasmatraj Building, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opposite Brahmapuri Hall, Rajkot. Rajkot. C/O D.R. Adhia “Om Shri Padamlaya”, Nr. Trikamrayji Haweli, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Amrpb4153C

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, the AO in absence of any reply imposed the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- for the defaults committed by the assessee as discussed above. 5. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT (A) also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

BHARTIBEN PINAKIN BAJAJ,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144 of the Act, penalty could be levied only for the first default, as has been held by the Honourable ITAT Delhi in the case of Shri Rekha Rani 60 Taxmann.com 131. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the above order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) restricting the penalty to " 10,000/- u/s 271

SHRI BABUBHAI MOHANBHAI SORATHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (3), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 01/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Babubhai Mohanbhai Sorthiya, I.T.O., “Aai Shree Gel Maa Bhavan, Vs. Ward-1(!)(3), Chora Mavdi Gam, Rajkot. Rajkot. C/O D.R Adhia “Om Shri Padamlaya”, Nr. Trikamrayji Haweli, 16-Jagnath Plot, Dr.Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Bhups6647H

u/s 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 25-05-2018. 5. The assessee in response thereto requested the AO to keep the penalty in abeyance till finalization quantum appeal. The AO found the request of the assessee unacceptable and held that the assessee failed to explain the reason for non- compliance of notices issued under section

SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA JUTHANI,JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, JUNAGADH

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

u/s 271(l)(b) could not be imposed for each and every default. If the default being same, penalty should be imposed for first default only. This is in view of the fact that section 271(l)(b) is of deterrent nature and not for earning revenue. In this regard support is drawn from the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT

AMRUTLAL CHHAGANLAL TANNA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 253/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act but again there was no response from the side of the assessee. Finally, the AO imposed the penalty for Rs. 30,000/- for each default committed by the assessee as discussed above under the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

NOORMAMAD HASAN KHAFI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.290/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Shri Noormamad Hasam Khafi, I.T.O., Nr. Nagnath Gate, Vs. Ward-2(2), Gomtipur, Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act but again there was no response from the side of the assessee. Finally, the AO imposed the penalty for Rs. 50,000/- for each defaults committed by the assessee as discussed above under the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

KAJAL NIMISHBHAI SINOJIA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1) , RKT, RAJKOT

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

u/s 142(1).” The appellant has tried in best possible manner to co-operate with department. please appreciate that non-compliance was not deliberate or willful on the part of the appellant, in fact appellant was not aware about the notice issued by AO 11.01.2023 & 26.04.2023 With respect to above we draw your honors kind attention to the decision

SHRI MAHESH DAMJIBHAI KHUNT,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (2), RAJKOT

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising as many as 11 grounds which are repetition in nature and no explanation offered for non-compliance of the notice u/s. 142(1). None appeared on behalf of the assessee and a written submission filed before us wherein

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

131(1A) from Shri Smitbhai Parshottambhai Kaneria, the Managing Director of M/s Classic Network Private Limited, the said impounded paper was provided to him and he has confronted the question about the impounded page and he was requested transaction written in the page by furnishing the ledger accounts of the said to explain the contractor of relevant period and also

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

131(1A) from Shri Smitbhai Parshottambhai Kaneria, the Managing Director of M/s Classic Network Private Limited, the said impounded paper was provided to him and he has confronted the question about the impounded page and he was requested transaction written in the page by furnishing the ledger accounts of the said to explain the contractor of relevant period and also

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

131(1A) from Shri Smitbhai Parshottambhai Kaneria, the Managing Director of M/s Classic Network Private Limited, the said impounded paper was provided to him and he has confronted the question about the impounded page and he was requested transaction written in the page by furnishing the ledger accounts of the said to explain the contractor of relevant period and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RJAKOT

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

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

131(1A) from Shri Smitbhai Parshottambhai Kaneria, the Managing Director of M/s Classic Network Private Limited, the said impounded paper was provided to him and he has confronted the question about the impounded page and he was requested transaction written in the page by furnishing the ledger accounts of the said to explain the contractor of relevant period and also

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

131(1A) from Shri Smitbhai Parshottambhai Kaneria, the Managing Director of M/s Classic Network Private Limited, the said impounded paper was provided to him and he has confronted the question about the impounded page and he was requested transaction written in the page by furnishing the ledger accounts of the said to explain the contractor of relevant period and also

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

131(1A) from Shri Smitbhai Parshottambhai Kaneria, the Managing Director of M/s Classic Network Private Limited, the said impounded paper was provided to him and he has confronted the question about the impounded page and he was requested transaction written in the page by furnishing the ledger accounts of the said to explain the contractor of relevant period and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

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

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

131(1A) from Shri Smitbhai Parshottambhai Kaneria, the Managing Director of M/s Classic Network Private Limited, the said impounded paper was provided to him and he has confronted the question about the impounded page and he was requested transaction written in the page by furnishing the ledger accounts of the said to explain the contractor of relevant period and also

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

131(1A) from Shri Smitbhai Parshottambhai Kaneria, the Managing Director of M/s Classic Network Private Limited, the said impounded paper was provided to him and he has confronted the question about the impounded page and he was requested transaction written in the page by furnishing the ledger accounts of the said to explain the contractor of relevant period and also

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

131(1A) from Shri Smitbhai Parshottambhai Kaneria, the Managing Director of M/s Classic Network Private Limited, the said impounded paper was provided to him and he has confronted the question about the impounded page and he was requested transaction written in the page by furnishing the ledger accounts of the said to explain the contractor of relevant period and also