BABUBHAI JOITARAM PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CENT-1 RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15&23/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Babubhai Joitram Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ 9 Suvas Colony St Xaviers High Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, School Road. Gujarat-380 014 Central Circle –1, Rajkot, Income Tax Officer, Amruta Estate Building, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdpp5355 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pramod Popat, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025

section 159 of the Act binds him for the same, which reads as under: ITA Nos. 15 & 23/RJT/2025 A.Ys 18-19 & 19-20 Babubhai J Patel “…… where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner

BABUBHAI JOITARAM PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CENT-1, RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15&23/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Babubhai Joitram Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ 9 Suvas Colony St Xaviers High Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, School Road. Gujarat-380 014 Central Circle –1, Rajkot, Income Tax Officer, Amruta Estate Building, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdpp5355 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pramod Popat, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025

section 159 of the Act binds him for the same, which reads as under: ITA Nos. 15 & 23/RJT/2025 A.Ys 18-19 & 19-20 Babubhai J Patel “…… where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

reassessment or re-computation under sub-section (3) of\nsection 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with\nrespect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner\nas per the following procedure, namely:\n(xvi) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall examine the draft assessment

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 147, such suspicion is not capable of conferring jurisdiction upon the A.O. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437) and Indian Oil Corporation (159 ITR 956) has held that the 'reason to believe' is different from 'reason to suspect' and it is the former which is required for assuming valid jurisdiction

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 147, such suspicion is not capable of conferring jurisdiction upon the A.O. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437) and Indian Oil Corporation (159 ITR 956) has held that the 'reason to believe' is different from 'reason to suspect' and it is the former which is required for assuming valid jurisdiction

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 147, such suspicion is not capable of conferring jurisdiction upon the A.O. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437) and Indian Oil Corporation (159 ITR 956) has held that the 'reason to believe' is different from 'reason to suspect' and it is the former which is required for assuming valid jurisdiction

TAKDIR TRADERS,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

reassessment proceedings, specific notice on very point was raised by the A.O. and the same was duly replied by the assessee and the same is placed on record. (PB Page 29-31 & 32-45), the AO after examination accepted the reply of the assessee, hence the AO explicitly applied his mind (as apparent also from assessment order Para 4). Action

TAKDIR TRADERS,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

reassessment proceedings, specific notice on very point was raised by the A.O. and the same was duly replied by the assessee and the same is placed on record. (PB Page 29-31 & 32-45), the AO after examination accepted the reply of the assessee, hence the AO explicitly applied his mind (as apparent also from assessment order Para 4). Action

TAKDIR TRADERS,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

reassessment proceedings, specific notice on very point was raised by the A.O. and the same was duly replied by the assessee and the same is placed on record. (PB Page 29-31 & 32-45), the AO after examination accepted the reply of the assessee, hence the AO explicitly applied his mind (as apparent also from assessment order Para 4). Action

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

section 263 of I.T. Act, that the order passed by the assessing\nofficer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. PCIT\nobserved that above facts indicate that assessing officer has not conducted any\ninquiries/ verification in respect of cash and cheque deposits in his bank\naccounts claimed to be belonging to the third parties

SURESH RATILAL LODARIA,ANJAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings, thereby indicating that the accounts and audit report were not in dispute. Thus, there was no loss to the revenue on account of the belated filing of the audit report. Due to his father's illness and incapacity, there was an inherent and unavoidable delay in the preparation of books of accounts as the appellant had to engage