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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Thus the learned AR pointed out that once the assessment in itself is bad in law and liable to be quashed, then the penalty arising out of such assessment order is not sustainable. Thus the penalty order framed under section 271(1

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

u/s 271(1 )(C) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income.” 30. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.9,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not shown from which property this rental income was received. The stand of the assessee is that since this is the assessment order framed under section 153A, therefore

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

u/s 271(1 )(C) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income.” 30. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.9,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not shown from which property this rental income was received. The stand of the assessee is that since this is the assessment order framed under section 153A, therefore

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

u/s 271(1 )(C) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income.” 30. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.9,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not shown from which property this rental income was received. The stand of the assessee is that since this is the assessment order framed under section 153A, therefore

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

u/s 271(1 )(C) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income.” 30. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.9,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not shown from which property this rental income was received. The stand of the assessee is that since this is the assessment order framed under section 153A, therefore

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

u/s 271(1 )(C) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income.” 30. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.9,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not shown from which property this rental income was received. The stand of the assessee is that since this is the assessment order framed under section 153A, therefore

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

u/s 271(1 )(C) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income.” 30. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.9,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not shown from which property this rental income was received. The stand of the assessee is that since this is the assessment order framed under section 153A, therefore

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

u/s 271(1 )(C) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income.” 30. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.9,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not shown from which property this rental income was received. The stand of the assessee is that since this is the assessment order framed under section 153A, therefore

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

u/s 271(1 )(C) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income.” 30. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.9,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not shown from which property this rental income was received. The stand of the assessee is that since this is the assessment order framed under section 153A, therefore

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Thus, the learned AR pointed out that once the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed, then the penalty arising out of such assessment order is not sustainable. Thus, the penalty order framed under section 271(1

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Thus, the learned AR pointed out that once the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed, then the penalty arising out of such assessment order is not sustainable. Thus, the penalty order framed under section 271(1

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Thus, the learned AR pointed out that once the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed, then the penalty arising out of such assessment order is not sustainable. Thus, the penalty order framed under section 271(1

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Thus, the learned AR pointed out that once the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed, then the penalty arising out of such assessment order is not sustainable. Thus, the penalty order framed under section 271(1

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Thus, the learned AR pointed out that once the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed, then the penalty arising out of such assessment order is not sustainable. Thus, the penalty order framed under section 271(1