PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT 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 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,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

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)

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.1. Similarly, the assessee failed to file Return of Income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, when the total income of the assessee was Rs. 5,13,890/- relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. Hence Ld. A.O. initiated penalty

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)

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.1. Similarly, the assessee failed to file Return of Income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, when the total income of the assessee was Rs. 5,13,890/- relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. Hence Ld. A.O. initiated penalty

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

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

u/s. 132(4) of the Act that he will pay the taxes on it on or before the specified date mentioned in the provision of section 271AAB. Thereafter, out of the total disclosure, the appellant has partly offered additional income of Rs.50,45,000/-in his return of income and paid tax on it before the specified date mentioned

PREMILABA RAMDE vs. INH JADEJA,RAJKOTVS.THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

section 271[1][b] for non- compliance of statutory notice issued u/s.142[1] of the Act and thereby imposed penalty for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. 2.3. Aggrieved against the same the assessee filed an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The Ld CIT[A] after considering in detailed the submissions of the assessee and deliberate non-compliance

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)

1. Confirming Penalty of Rs. 10,67,798/- u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the notice u/s. 271(l)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act,1961 was issued without specifying the limbs for which the penalty was levied. 2. Confirming penalty of Rs. 10,67,798/- u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income

YESHA DHIRAJLAL THAKRAR,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

Section 148 was challenged on legal ground. It was submitted that if legal ground is upheld by ld. CIT(A) and reassessment proceedings are held to be bad in law, then the whole reassessment order will have to be quashed and these penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) will Yesha Dhirjla Thakarar v. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Assessment Year

VIJAYABEN RAMBHAI VAJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and I.T.A Nos. 281 to 284/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Smt. Vijayaben Rambhai Vaja Vs. ITO Penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 2.1. The brief fact

VIJAYABEN RAMBHAI VAJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and I.T.A Nos. 281 to 284/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Smt. Vijayaben Rambhai Vaja Vs. ITO Penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 2.1. The brief fact

VIJAYABEN RAMBHAI VAJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and I.T.A Nos. 281 to 284/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Smt. Vijayaben Rambhai Vaja Vs. ITO Penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 2.1. The brief fact

VIJAYABEN RAMBHAI VAJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and I.T.A Nos. 281 to 284/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Smt. Vijayaben Rambhai Vaja Vs. ITO Penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 2.1. The brief fact

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

u/s. 271(1)(c), now section 270A, unless the revenue proves the ingredients of concealment or that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars." Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty

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

u/s. 271(1)(c), now section 270A, unless the revenue proves the ingredients of concealment or that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars." Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty

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

u/s. 271(1)(c), now section 270A, unless the revenue proves the ingredients of concealment or that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars." Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty