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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

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) r.w.s. 153C vide order dated 27.12.2016 accepting the returned income with initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The AO levied the penalty of Rs.l,33,002/- i.e. equal to 100% of the tax sought to have been evaded vide order dated 23.5.2017 and the appellant is in appeal against

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)

section u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non- appearance dated 12-04-2018 and levied penalty totaling to " 40

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

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15) Pankaj C Lodhiya 2. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

RAMKRUPA COT-GIN CORPORATION,,AT. CHHAPRA, TAL.LODHIKA, DIST.RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

40,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. The assessee filed appeal against order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act before CIT(A). However, despite issuance of several notices of hearing, none responded / attended the hearing before CIT(A) and accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) passed order considering the penalty order u/s 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

40,841/- is totally on presumption and estimated basis. It is settled law no penalty in respect of addition made on estimated basis can be levied. The assessee relies on the following: 1. 106 ITR 672 (All.) - Mussadilal Singh 2. 150 ITR 714 (P & H) - Metal Products of India 3. 258 ITR 85 (P & H) - HarigopaJ Singh

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

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

NOORMAMAD HASAN KHAFI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.290/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Shri Noormamad Hasam Khafi, I.T.O., Nr. Nagnath Gate, Vs. Ward-2(2), Gomtipur, Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act but again there was no response from the side of the assessee. Finally, the AO imposed the penalty for Rs. 50,000/- for each defaults committed by the assessee as discussed above under the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

SANJAYKUMAR VALLABHBHAI PAN (HUF),RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.958/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (Huf) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) बनाम 703-, Pyramid Tower Rajkot. Bansi Park Vs. Amin Marg Rajkot 360 001. Pan : Aaohs 9548 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the, Act was levied by the assessing officer, ( respect of estimated confirmed addition of Rs.19,68,993/-), vide order dated 07.03.2018 for AY 2012-13. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty under section 271