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

U/s.\n153A/143(3)), it appears to me that you\nhave without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were\nrequired to furnish by a notice given under section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian\nIncome tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or\nby a notice given

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

U/s.\n153A/143(3)), it appears to me that you\n\nhave without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were\nrequired to furnish by a notice given under section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian\nIncome tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or\nby a notice

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

U/s.\n153A/143(3)), it appears to me that you\nhave without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were\nrequired to furnish by a notice given under section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian\nIncome tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or\nby a notice given

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

U/s.\n153A/143(3)), it appears to me that you\nhave without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were\nrequired to furnish by a notice given under section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian\nIncome tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or\nby a notice given

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

U/s.\n153A/143(3)), it appears to me that you\nhave without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were\nrequired to furnish by a notice given under section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian\nIncome tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or\nby a notice given

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)

139(1) of the Act. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, confirmed the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act observing as follows: U/s. 271(1)(b):- “I have considered the Statement of Facts and perused the relevant records. The only issue in this appeal, is imposition of the penalty u/s. 271

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)

139(1) of the Act. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, confirmed the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act observing as follows: U/s. 271(1)(b):- “I have considered the Statement of Facts and perused the relevant records. The only issue in this appeal, is imposition of the penalty u/s. 271

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

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

u/s 274 has been issued by the AO. c) On the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order is bad in law as the approval of JCIT dated 24.05.2017 was an approval without application of mind. 4. The learned AR for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee vide letter dated

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

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)

4. In appeal against the order passed under section u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the penalty order with the following observations: “The notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 31,08,2016, During the scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee filed a revised return of income wherein income from long term capita! gain

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

139(1) of the Act. The time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) has expired before the search was conducted upon the assessee on 11.10.2006. The AO has not referred to any seized material for the additions made to the total income of the assessee. In other words, no material was found during the course of search relating

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

139(1) of the Act. The time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) has expired before the search was conducted upon the assessee on 11.10.2006. The AO has not referred to any seized material for the additions made to the total income of the assessee. In other words, no material was found during the course of search relating

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

139(1) of the Act. The time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) has expired before the search was conducted upon the assessee on 11.10.2006. The AO has not referred to any seized material for the additions made to the total income of the assessee. In other words, no material was found during the course of search relating

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

139(1) of the Act. The time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) has expired before the search was conducted upon the assessee on 11.10.2006. The AO has not referred to any seized material for the additions made to the total income of the assessee. In other words, no material was found during the course of search relating

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

139(1) of the Act. The time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) has expired before the search was conducted upon the assessee on 11.10.2006. The AO has not referred to any seized material for the additions made to the total income of the assessee. In other words, no material was found during the course of search relating

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

139(1) of the Act. The time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) has expired before the search was conducted upon the assessee on 11.10.2006. The AO has not referred to any seized material for the additions made to the total income of the assessee. In other words, no material was found during the course of search relating

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

139(1) of the Act. The time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) has expired before the search was conducted upon the assessee on 11.10.2006. The AO has not referred to any seized material for the additions made to the total income of the assessee. In other words, no material was found during the course of search relating

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

139(1) of the Act. The time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) has expired before the search was conducted upon the assessee on 11.10.2006. The AO has not referred to any seized material for the additions made to the total income of the assessee. In other words, no material was found during the course of search relating