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

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,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

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

u/s. 143(3) of the Act r.w. sec. 153A of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 14.15 Now the issue arises whether the assessment order can be challenged in the penalty proceedings and consequently penalty order can be held as invalid. This question has been answered by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Atlanta

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)

22 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025

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)

22 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025

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)

22 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025

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)

22 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025

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)

22 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025

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)

22 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025

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)

22 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025

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)

22 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025

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)

22 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025

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

22 of 24\nITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors.\nVallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya\n35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of\nGipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the\nassessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.\n36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025

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)

22-12-2022, in proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 32/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 M/s. Dharti Traders Vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in passing the appellate order u/s

KONARK OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in\nabove terms

22,429/- on account of claim of depreciation on the ground\nthat the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income.\n4. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A)\nhas dismissed the appeal of the assessee on 05.07.2024.\n5. The assessee filed an appeal before us against the impugned order dated\n05.07.2024

M/S. GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act of Rs.40,90,779/-.” 15. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 40,90,779.00 under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. The assessee in the year under consideration has declared the loss