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)

144 r.w.s. 147. However, this will not grant the appellant immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 271F. As per 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

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)

144 r.w.s. 147. However, this will not grant the appellant immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 271F. As per 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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. DHARTI TREDERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the penalty for non-appearance is directed to be restricted to the first default on part of the assessee in not complying with the notice of hearing i

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

144 of the Act, on the basis of material available on record. The AO passed penalty under section u/s 271

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

271(1) (c) of the Act.\n36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y.\n2013-14 and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15, are allowed.\n37. Now we shall take, remaining penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA,\nNo.511/Rjt/2025, for A.Y. 2013-14, Penalty u/s. 271A of the Act, on account

RAMKRUPA COT-GIN CORPORATION,,AT. CHHAPRA, TAL.LODHIKA, DIST.RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

144 of the Act and Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act by the Ld. AO, neither the assessee nor his AR caused any appearance. Accordingly, the Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per default for each

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.

144 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act, making an addition of Rs. 1,90,50,000/- against the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii) of the 1961 Act as an unexplained investment. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s 271

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, on 31.10.2019 at a total income of Rs.20,70,660/- and penalty proceedings was initiated. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the various judgments, the assessing officer had concluded that the case of the assessee was a fit case for levying of penalty u/s 271

SMT. BHARTI PINAKIN BAJAJ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 131/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 Bharati Pinakin Bajaj, I.T.O., Hasmatraj Building, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opposite Brahmapuri Hall, Rajkot. Rajkot. C/O D.R. Adhia “Om Shri Padamlaya”, Nr. Trikamrayji Haweli, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Amrpb4153C

144 of the Act issued notices u/s A.Y. 2015-16 3 143(2) of the Act dated 03-07-2017, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 02-08-2017 and final show cause notice dated 17-10-2017 but the assessee failed to comply with the same. In view of above, the AO during assessment proceedings initiated penalty

BHARTIBEN PINAKIN BAJAJ,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144 of the Act, penalty could be levied only for the first default, as has been held by the Honourable ITAT Delhi in the case of Shri Rekha Rani 60 Taxmann.com 131. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the above order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) restricting the penalty to " 10,000/- u/s 271

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 BABUBHAI MOHANBHAI SORATHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (3), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 01/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Babubhai Mohanbhai Sorthiya, I.T.O., “Aai Shree Gel Maa Bhavan, Vs. Ward-1(!)(3), Chora Mavdi Gam, Rajkot. Rajkot. C/O D.R Adhia “Om Shri Padamlaya”, Nr. Trikamrayji Haweli, 16-Jagnath Plot, Dr.Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Bhups6647H

u/s 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 25-05-2018. 5. The assessee in response thereto requested the AO to keep the penalty in abeyance till finalization quantum appeal. The AO found the request of the assessee unacceptable and held that the assessee failed to explain the reason for non- compliance of notices issued under section

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 148 no return was filed. Despite various opportunities provided to the appellant no details/clarifications were provided to the AO during reassessment proceedings. The action of the AO has also been confirmed to the extent of Rs. 17,03,805/- by the Kanjibhai Bhimjibhai Rangani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2007-08 then CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot. Under these circumstances

SHRI AJAYBHAI MUGATRLAL PANDYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2006-07

144 of the Act on 13.03.2014 assessing total income at Rs.2,39,180/-. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) were initiated for non compliance of statutory notice issued under section 148 and 142(1) of the Act. The Assessment Year: 2006-07 Page 3 of 5 Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied for each

KAJAL NIMISHBHAI SINOJIA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1) , RKT, RAJKOT

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

144 on dated 18/05/2023 While making an assessment a penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) were initiated in the Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia assessment order. The assessment order speak that the appellant has failed complied with statutory notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act para 3.4.1 of the order is reproduce: “ During the course of assessment proceedings notices u/s