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

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

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,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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also issued on 21/12/2018. 4. In response to the penalty notice, the assessee had filed written reply on 18/06/2019, before the assessing officer. The assessee submitted that it is very clear on reading the provisions of section

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

4] 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee amounting to Rs.53,97,870/-. 3. We have carefully gone through the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty and we have noted that she deleted the penalty noting that • the only impact of the assessment was rejecting the assessee’s claim of returning presumptive

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

4) of the Act cannot be covered within the sweep of "undisclosed income" for the purposes of imposition of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. 8. Resting his case on the facts and proposition of law as above, he contended that the confirmation of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, was contrary

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)

4 Shri Rajnitkant Hargovinddas Sanadia vs. ITO failed to offer any explanation for non-compliance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act and not filing the Return of Income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, confirmed the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act observing as follows: U/s

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)

4 Shri Rajnitkant Hargovinddas Sanadia vs. ITO failed to offer any explanation for non-compliance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act and not filing the Return of Income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, confirmed the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act observing as follows: U/s

M/S MKC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANJAR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In view of the facts that the proceedings have not crystallized no interference on this point is called for. 8.0 In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271 (1) (C). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 7. We further rely upon the following Judgments to submit that we have not violate the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Bombay High Court in 1 has held that before proceeding to the case of CIT vs. Rucha Explanation below 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)

271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15, are allowed. 37. Now we shall take, remaining penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA, No.511/Rjt/2025, for A.Y. 2013-14, Penalty u/s. 271A of the Act, on account

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 Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15, are allowed. 37. Now we shall take, remaining penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA, No.511/Rjt/2025, for A.Y. 2013-14, Penalty u/s. 271A of the Act, on account

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 Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15, are allowed. 37. Now we shall take, remaining penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA, No.511/Rjt/2025, for A.Y. 2013-14, Penalty u/s. 271A of the Act, on account

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 Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15, are allowed. 37. Now we shall take, remaining penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA, No.511/Rjt/2025, for A.Y. 2013-14, Penalty u/s. 271A of the Act, on account

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 Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15, are allowed. 37. Now we shall take, remaining penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA, No.511/Rjt/2025, for A.Y. 2013-14, Penalty u/s. 271A of the Act, on account

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 Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15, are allowed. 37. Now we shall take, remaining penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA, No.511/Rjt/2025, for A.Y. 2013-14, Penalty u/s. 271A of the Act, on account

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 Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15, are allowed. 37. Now we shall take, remaining penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA, No.511/Rjt/2025, for A.Y. 2013-14, Penalty u/s. 271A of the Act, on account