THE ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI VICKY BALKRISHNA MEHTA, RAJKOT

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Income-Tax, 7Th Floor, Mansrovar Central Circle-2, Apartment, Royal Park, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Agqpm 6495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2020 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

148 of the Act without appreciating that the facts found during the course of search proceedings showed that the members of the assessee 2 ACIT Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta AY : 2004-05 group were holding undisclosed foreign bank account in various foreign banks including HSBC Geneva and ABN AMRO Bank, Zurich and, therefore, the ingredients of section 147 were

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

reassessment notice 2) under section 148 has undergone a change by replacing the old procedure under sections 147 to 151 by new procedure

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

reassessment notice 2) under section 148 has undergone a change by replacing the old procedure under sections 147 to 151 by new procedure

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

2 to Section 148 of the Act, this, is in stark\ncontradiction to the reasons mentioned in the very notice issued u/s. 148 dated\n23.02.2023. In the said notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 23.02.2023, it is\nmentioned that assessment is reopened on account of search initiated u/s 132 of\nthe Act, in assessee`s case

ABDULKADAR HAJIAHMED VADIWALA,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.103/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala The Pr.Cit बनाम Maniar Street, Lindi Bazar Jamanagar. Jamnagar-361001 Vs. Pan : Aatpv 4729 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151 (ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

2 to Section 148 of the Act, this, is in stark\ncontradiction to the reasons mentioned in the very notice issued u/s. 148 dated\n23.02.2023. In the said notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 23.02.2023, it is\nmentioned that assessment is reopened on account of search initiated u/s 132 of\nthe Act, in assessee`s case

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

2 to Section 148 of the Act, this, is in stark\ncontradiction to the reasons mentioned in the very notice issued u/s. 148 dated\n23.02.2023. In the said notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 23.02.2023, it is\nmentioned that assessment is reopened on account of search initiated u/s 132 of\nthe Act, in assessee`s case

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

148 of the Act, the proceedings u/s 143(2) of the Act is tereminated. " 2. This ground goes to the root of the matter and it is a legal ground as to the validity of the reassessment. 3. The legal ground can be taken up at any stage . in this regards reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

reassessment under Section 148 within the prescribed time limits. Further, Section 151 requires assessing officers to obtain sanction of the specified authority before issuing notice under Section 148. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. S P Chaliha, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 151 must be strictly adhered to because it contains "important safeguards." 65 Section 151 imposes

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

reassessment under Section 148 within the prescribed time limits. Further, Section 151 requires assessing officers to obtain sanction of the specified authority before issuing notice under Section 148. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. S P Chaliha, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 151 must be strictly adhered to because it contains "important safeguards." 65 Section 151 imposes

MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

reassessment order itself is not valid, therefore, subsequent order passed by the ld.Pr.CIT by exercising the revisionary jurisdiction is also bad in law. 6.The assessee also submitted before ld. PCIT that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has conducted sufficient inquiry in respect of the issue raised by the ld. Pr. CIT. The assessee also submitted before the ld.Pr.CIT

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

2 to Section 148 of the Act, this, is in stark\ncontradiction to the reasons mentioned in the very notice issued u/s. 148 dated\n23.02.2023. In the said notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 23.02.2023, it is\nmentioned that assessment is reopened on account of search initiated u/s 132 of\nthe Act, in assessee`s case

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

2 to Section 148 of the Act, this, is in stark\ncontradiction to the reasons mentioned in the very notice issued u/s. 148 dated\n23.02.2023. In the said notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 23.02.2023, it is\nmentioned that assessment is reopened on account of search initiated u/s 132 of\nthe Act, in assessee`s case

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

2 to Section 148 of the Act, this, is in stark\ncontradiction to the reasons mentioned in the very notice issued u/s. 148 dated\n23.02.2023. In the said notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 23.02.2023, it is\nmentioned that assessment is reopened on account of search initiated u/s 132 of\nthe Act, in assessee`s case

KISHAN BEEJ,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.384/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Beej Ito, Wared-2(1) बनाम Kashivishvanath Road Jamnagar – 361 001 Nr. P & T Office Vs. Jamnagar – 361 001 Pan : Aacfk 2114 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly passed the order without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 2.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the l.T. Act, 1961. 3.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition

M/S. SHREEDHAR CONSTRUCTION ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD- 1 (3) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 542/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S. Shreedhar Construction, The Ito, Vs. 211, Divyam Complex Airodrome Ward-1(3), Road,Jamnagar-361006 ( Gujarat) Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclfs0395R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2,55,05,699/- was made to the total income of the assessee. 7.Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Before, learned CIT(A), the assessee has raised the technical grounds stating that reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer and notice under section 148

KALPESH RAVJIBHAI SOJITRA,JASDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

2 had considered the effect and interpretation of the said provision. The relevant extract of the said decision reads thus:- 35. Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable to tax has escaped within the meaning of Sec 147 of the Act and the assessment year under consideration