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)

34. We have considered submissions of both the parties. The necessary facts of the assessee's case have already been narrated by us in this order, therefore, we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. We find merit, in the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that penalty on estimated addition under section 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)

34. We have considered submissions of both the parties. The necessary facts of the assessee's case have already been narrated by us in this order, therefore, we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. We find merit, in the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that penalty on estimated addition under section 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)

34. We have considered submissions of both the parties. The necessary facts of the assessee's case have already been narrated by us in this order, therefore, we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. We find merit, in the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that penalty on estimated addition under section 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)

34. We have considered submissions of both the parties. The necessary facts of the assessee's case have already been narrated by us in this order, therefore, we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. We find merit, in the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that penalty on estimated addition under section 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)

34. We have considered submissions of both the parties. The necessary facts of the assessee's case have already been narrated by us in this order, therefore, we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. We find merit, in the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that penalty on estimated addition under section 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)

34. We have considered submissions of both the parties. The necessary facts of the assessee's case have already been narrated by us in this order, therefore, we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. We find merit, in the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that penalty on estimated addition under section 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)

34. We have considered submissions of both the parties. The necessary facts of the assessee's case have already been narrated by us in this order, therefore, we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. We find merit, in the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that penalty on estimated addition under section 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)

34. We have considered submissions of both the parties. The necessary facts of the assessee's case have already been narrated by us in this order, therefore, we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. We find merit, in the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that penalty on estimated addition under section 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)

34. We have considered submissions of both the parties. The necessary facts of the assessee's case have already been narrated by us in this order, therefore, we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. We find merit, in the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that penalty on estimated addition under section 271

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

DINESHCHANDRA N. SHAH,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

34,912/- which was not disclosed in the income tax return. ii. Disallowance of the expenses for accounting charges and other expenses amounting to Rs. 24,612/- respectively against the interest income received from the partnership firm. The AO in the assessment order dated 20th November 2015 initiated the 4. penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 271

JITENDRAKUMAR BHAILAL DODIYA,SAVARKUNDLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), AMRELI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

34 TAXMAN.com 65(GUJ). Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maganur Builders ITA No. 616/2015 and in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn) has been placed to hold that no penalty can be levied without specifying proper charge, 3.1 Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon. ITAT Rajkot

M/S. DECENT METAL PRODUCTS,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, the same is confirmed.” 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA No. 139/Rjt/19 [Decent Metal Products vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - 6. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages

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

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