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

Penalty order and the notice are\nbad in law or not? Before embarking upon the discussion on the core issue, we\nthought that it would be appropriate, first, to consider the notice issued by the\nassessing officer, u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is re-produced below for better\nunderstanding:\n14\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022

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

Penalty order and the notice are\nbad in law or not? Before embarking upon the discussion on the core issue, we\nthought that it would be appropriate, first, to consider the notice issued by the\nassessing officer, u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is re-produced below for better\nunderstanding:\n\n14\n\nOffice of the\nAssistant Commissioner

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

Penalty order and the notice are\nbad in law or not? Before embarking upon the discussion on the core issue, we\nthought that it would be appropriate, first, to consider the notice issued by the\nassessing officer, u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is re-produced below for better\nunderstanding:\n14\n==End of OCR for page

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

Penalty order and the notice are\nbad in law or not? Before embarking upon the discussion on the core issue, we\nthought that it would be appropriate, first, to consider the notice issued by the\nassessing officer, u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is re-produced below for better\nunderstanding:\n14\nOffice of the\nAssistant Commissioner of Income

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

Penalty order and the notice are\nbad in law or not? Before embarking upon the discussion on the core issue, we\nthought that it would be appropriate, first, to consider the notice issued by the\nassessing officer, u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is re-produced below for better\nunderstanding:\n14\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022

JETHANAND ATMARAM DHANWANI,ADIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. Ito, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/Pan/Gir No.: Afvpd8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025

271 (1)(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the Assessing Officer, has initiated penalty on both limbs, that is, "furnished inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealed particulars of income" 10. However, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 21/12/2018, passed u/s 148 read with section

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)

148 notice) at approximate 2 percent of the bank credits was not accepted by the assessing officer and the same was taken as NIL for computation purpose. 7. The assessing officer, then framed the assessment, under section 147 read with section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

148 notice) at approximate 2 percent of the bank credits was not accepted by the assessing officer and the same was taken as NIL for computation purpose. 7. The assessing officer, then framed the assessment, under section 147 read with section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

148 notice) at approximate 2 percent of the bank credits was not accepted by the assessing officer and the same was taken as NIL for computation purpose. 7. The assessing officer, then framed the assessment, under section 147 read with section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

148 notice) at approximate 2 percent of the bank credits was not accepted by the assessing officer and the same was taken as NIL for computation purpose. 7. The assessing officer, then framed the assessment, under section 147 read with section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

148 notice) at approximate 2 percent of the bank credits was not accepted by the assessing officer and the same was taken as NIL for computation purpose. 7. The assessing officer, then framed the assessment, under section 147 read with section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

148 notice) at approximate 2 percent of the bank credits was not accepted by the assessing officer and the same was taken as NIL for computation purpose. 7. The assessing officer, then framed the assessment, under section 147 read with section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

148 notice) at approximate 2 percent of the bank credits was not accepted by the assessing officer and the same was taken as NIL for computation purpose. 7. The assessing officer, then framed the assessment, under section 147 read with section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

148 notice) at approximate 2 percent of the bank credits was not accepted by the assessing officer and the same was taken as NIL for computation purpose. 7. The assessing officer, then framed the assessment, under section 147 read with section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

148 notice) at approximate 2 percent of the bank credits was not accepted by the assessing officer and the same was taken as NIL for computation purpose. 7. The assessing officer, then framed the assessment, under section 147 read with section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

148 notice) at approximate 2 percent of the bank credits was not accepted by\nthe assessing officer and the same was taken as NIL for computation purpose.\n7. The assessing officer, then framed the assessment, under section 147 read with\nsection 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty\nproceedings u/s 271

THE ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI VICKY BALKRISHNA MEHTA, RAJKOT

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Income-Tax, 7Th Floor, Mansrovar Central Circle-2, Apartment, Royal Park, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Agqpm 6495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2020 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

section 149(1)(c) notice u/s. 148 could be issued up to 16 years which have lapsed during which the income chargeable to tax in India had escaped the assessment. 4.2 Accordingly notice u/s. 148 was issued on 27.02.2015. No return of income was filed. Vide letter dated 27.03.2015 the AO show caused as to whyhis case should

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