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

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

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.

4. The assessee has come in second appeal with ITAT, Rajkot Bench, against the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee w.r.t. penalty of Rs. 30,000/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the 1961 Act. We have heard both the parties through virtual hearing mode through e-court

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

SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT

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

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

139(1) of the Act. However, as stated above, the details with respect to audit report u/s 92E of the Act was remained to be uploaded due to inadvertent error/mistake which was completely unintentional." 4. "In connection with the above, it needs mention that the audit report u/s 92E of the Act was obtained from a chartered accountant which

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 3. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of charging the interest u/s.234 A/B/C

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 3. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of charging the interest u/s.234 A/B/C