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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\n\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal

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

132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 153A

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

penalty proceedings can be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, the assessee has filed the income tax return under the provisions of section 153C of the Act declaring income of Rs. 4,43,340.00 which was accepted in the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act vide

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)

132 taxmann.com 42 (Bombay) held as follows: “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim, effect of) - Assessee filed return declaring a total income - Assessing Officer noted that assessee made an incorrect claim of deduction under section 10B and levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) - An erroneous claim

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

271(1)(c), set aside penalty order - High Court took a view that where assessee in course of search admits undisclosed income and manner in which such income has been derived, than provisions of section 271AAB would automatically attract - High Court further opined that since opportunity of hearing as prescribed under section 271AAB had been given to assessee, penalty order

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

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)

u/s. 68 of the Act. 8.1. For adjudicating the levy of penalty is correct in law or otherwise, Section 271AAB is reproduced as follows: Penalty where search has been initiated. 271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132

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 (1 )(c) of Act by the AO for concealment of Income is hereby confirmed and upheld. GOA no. 1 is dismissed. GOA no. 2 is routine and general in nature. 10. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 11. The learned AR before us through additional ground

THE ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI VICKY BALKRISHNA MEHTA, RAJKOT

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Income-Tax, 7Th Floor, Mansrovar Central Circle-2, Apartment, Royal Park, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Agqpm 6495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2020 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

132 of the Act was carried out on 20.03.2012 in the Mehta Group of cases which covered the assessee and his family members, that they were found to be holding undisclosed foreign accounts in various foreign banks outside India which were not disclosed for the purpose of the Act, that he along with his father Shri Balkrishna Mehta and grandfather