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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has\nrelied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT\nv. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has\nrelied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT\nv. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has\nrelied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT\nv. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has\nrelied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT\nv. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has\nrelied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT\nv. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal after considering the facts, deleted the penalty and observed that since there is no change in the income declared and income assessed by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that there were any concealment of income. Relevant extract is reproduced as under: "We find that the income of the assessee during re-assessment

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)

20-12-2018 at the fag end of the assessment proceedings declaring total income of Rs. 5,13,890/-. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment determining the total income at Rs. 14,42,470/- vide order dated 26-12-2018. 2.1. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated

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)

20-12-2018 at the fag end of the assessment proceedings declaring total income of Rs. 5,13,890/-. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment determining the total income at Rs. 14,42,470/- vide order dated 26-12-2018. 2.1. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated

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

20% or 30% with the Assessing Officer. He contended that there was no provision not to levy penalty; and as for the admission of the assessee qualifying as undisclosed income, he stated that, in terms of accounting, the provisions of Section 271AAB(3)(c)(a)(A) are satisfied as far as the definition of undisclosed income is concerned

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties once the assessment order itself has been quashed

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties once the assessment order itself has been quashed

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties once the assessment order itself has been quashed

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties once the assessment order itself has been quashed

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties once the assessment order itself has been quashed

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties once the assessment order itself has been quashed

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties once the assessment order itself has been quashed

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties once the assessment order itself has been quashed

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties once the assessment order itself has been quashed

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 292/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Smt. Bijal Darshitbhai Pujara vs. Dy. CIT 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in - 1. Confirming Penalty