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,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

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

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the interest charged u/s 234A/B/C of the I. T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law.” 3. First, we shall take ground No. 1 and 2, above, raised

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) in our considered opinion is unwarranted. For better understanding Section 271(1)(b) and 273B are extracted below: “271

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) in our considered opinion is unwarranted. For better understanding Section 271(1)(b) and 273B are extracted below: “271

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) in our considered opinion is unwarranted. For better understanding Section 271(1)(b) and 273B are extracted below: “271

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) in our considered opinion is unwarranted. For better understanding Section 271(1)(b) and 273B are extracted below: “271

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) in our considered opinion is unwarranted. For better understanding Section 271(1)(b) and 273B are extracted below: “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)

section 3 of Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the declarant would be provided immunity only for penalty levied on disputed tax, in case he opts I.T.A No. 271 & 272/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 5 Shri Rajnitkant Hargovinddas Sanadia vs. ITO for Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. In this case, as mentioned above, penalty was levied for a technical default

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)

section 3 of Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the declarant would be provided immunity only for penalty levied on disputed tax, in case he opts I.T.A No. 271 & 272/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 5 Shri Rajnitkant Hargovinddas Sanadia vs. ITO for Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. In this case, as mentioned above, penalty was levied for a technical default

UTSAV COTFAB P. LTD.,JETPUR vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Roy(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Utsav Cotfab Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R Survey No. 603P/3/P/1, Ward- 1(2)(3), Khirsara Road, Nr. Jodia Hanuman Rajkot Mandir, Jetpur, Rajkot – 360370 Pan : Aabcu 3825 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

2 142(1) alongwith s/c of 05.07.2016 By RPAD 19.07.2016 Not complied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) 3 142(1) alongwith s/c of 02.09.2016 By RPAD 16.09.2016 Not complied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) 4 142(1) alongwith s/c of 07.11.2016 By RPAD 22.11.2016 Not complied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) 5 142(1) alongwith s/c of 23.11.2016 By RPAD

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake