SHRI RAJESHKUMAR MAHESHBHAI MANEK,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, additional legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. The facts relating to reopening the assessment under section 147/148 were there before the assessing officer.We note that it is purely a legal issue and all facts are already on record which goes to the root of the matter and no further inquiry is required for deciding the same, as all facts

SHRI PARESHKUMAR NARSHIBHAI SIROYA,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

reassessment stage, there is no question\nof having taken one view of the matter or taking two different views by the assessing officer\nor by the CIT.\n(iii)The Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin in the case of Shri Narayana Dharam Paripalana\nYuvadhana Samiti vs. ITO, Exemption (2019) 111 taxmnan.com 416 has held that where\nthe assessing officer has taken

HETALKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

sections": [ "69A", "115BBE", "263", "143(3)", "142(1)", "69B", "69C", "43B", "133(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment order passed by the PCIT

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

LUNAR CERAMICS,WANKANER vs. PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

133(6) dated 23.01.2023 was\nissued to Haresh Sojitra calling for details of transactions entered into with the\nassessee. However, no response received by the Haresh Sojitra. The assessee\nstated that no transaction with the Haresh Sojitra during the assessment year, an\naffidavit was filed in support of this. After considering the assessment order\ncompleted on returned income

AJAYKUMAR NATWARLAL SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, I have produced all the\ninformation, details, data and materials such as books of accounts, expenses bills and\nvouchers and copy of each contract notes and bills and ledger account of F&O trading\nactivities are also placed on records which you have verified. As you have not called\nfor the details from my registered broker u/s 133

JAY PRABHUDAS VITHALANI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

133(6) of the Act was issued to the parties with the prior approval\nfrom the authority and in reply the AO and relied \"Copy of Income tax Return,\ncopy of ledger account with your concern, copy of bank statement reflecting and\nhighlighting the entry of the transaction with assessee's concern, Copy of GST\nReturn.\"\nAll the above submissions

LATE CHHOTALAL VALLABHADAS DOSHI L/H. HEIR SMT. PRABHAVATIBEN CHHOTALAL DOSHI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.698/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Chhotalal Vallabhdas Doshi Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Jamnagar. (Legal Heir Smt. Prabhavatiben Chhotalal Doshi). 505 Ajitnath Apartment, Near Indraprasth Tower, Jamnagar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdpd9371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing :23/12/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement :22/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 24/07/204, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 22/03/2016 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal By Contending That No Response Has Been Received From Assessee Although The Response Has Been Submitted Through Samadhan.Faceless.Appeal@Incometax.Gov.In As There Was No Income Tax Registration Due To Death Of The Assessee I.E. Chhotalal Doshi On Ita-698/Rjt/2024 (Ay-2008-09) Late Chhotalal Doshi Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Jamnagar.

section 151 of the IT Act in mechanical manner and therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is invalid and reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment. 6. Learned A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of total of credits appearing in bank accounts amounting

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms\nof which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on\nassessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for\nreopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

LAXMANBHAI NATHUBHAI ZORA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(3),RAJKOT, PORBANDAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2012-13) Laxmanbhainathubhai Zora Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3) Rameshwari Krupa, Nr.Railway Pata Rajkot, Porbandar. Thakkar Plot, Porbandar. Pan : Aakpz 1087 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.The grounds raised by the assessee, in the appeal, are as follows: (1) The Learned assessing officer has erred in law as well as on facts ininitiating reassessment procedure and Passing of assessment order without communication of Reason for reopening. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order

PARESHKUMAR NENSHIBHAI THAKKAR,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT- RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.- & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.381&382/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14, 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshkumar Nenshibhai Thakkar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 6, Dharmendra Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001. Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdt0333R (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(SC), (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), wherein it was held as under: 5. That the Ld PCIT make an order dated 25/03/2024 with following observation “I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for invoking section 263 of IT. Act as the twin conditions namely,(i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought

PARESHKUMAR NENSHIBHAI THAKKAR,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.- & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.381&382/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14, 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshkumar Nenshibhai Thakkar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 6, Dharmendra Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001. Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdt0333R (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(SC), (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), wherein it was held as under: 5. That the Ld PCIT make an order dated 25/03/2024 with following observation “I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for invoking section 263 of IT. Act as the twin conditions namely,(i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought

JABIR AYOOB VAHEVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

section 263 of the Act. Therefore, ld.PCIT set -aside the assessment order passed under section143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 23/12/2022 for A.Y. 2021-22 to the extent of the issues mentioned and discussed above and directed the assessing officer to conduct detailed verification of the purchases from eleven entities flagged as suspicious and reassess the income

ALTAF AYOOBBHAI VEHVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

section 263 of the Act. Therefore, ld.PCIT set -aside the assessment order passed under section143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 23/12/2022 for A.Y. 2021-22 to the extent of the issues mentioned and discussed above and directed the assessing officer to conduct detailed verification of the purchases from eleven entities flagged as suspicious and reassess the income

A.C.I.T CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT vs. SANSKAR DEVELOPERS, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection (CO ) filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 242/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Assisstant Commissioner Of Income- Sanskar Developers Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No. 311, Shop No. 1, Shri Raj Complex, 1- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Madhav Park, B/H. Vijay Hostel, Course Road, Rajkot – 360001 150Ft Ring Road, Rajkot – 360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackfs 2310 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 147/148 of the Act, is concerned, and we find that there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the learned CIT(A). On a careful reading of the Ld.CIT(A) order and the findings thereon, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the decision and findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding reassessment proceedings

KHUSHBOO JAYKUMAR VITHLANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudasvithlani Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Income Tax, Gujarat – 361008 Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act was issued to the parties with the prior approval from the authority and in reply the AO and relied "Copy of Income tax Return, copy of ledger account with your concern, copy of bank statement reflecting and highlighting the entry of the transaction with assessee's concern, Copy of GST Return." All the above submissions

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and\nAssessing Officer made following addition:\n34\nH\nBHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA\nDHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI\ni.\nAddition an account of commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-.\nii.\nAddition of peak credit in bank account of Rs. 46,50,353/-.\nOn appeal, before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions\nmade on account