SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

234 ITR 733 had held that the evidence found and the material available\nshould be the basis for computing the undisclosed income. It was observed by the\nBench that to hold that even without any evidence or material the Assessing Officer\nwould be empowered to estimate the income was fraught with dangerous\nconsequences. The Assessing Officer cannot presume that there

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

234 ITR 733 had held that the evidence found and the material available\nshould be the basis for computing the undisclosed income. It was observed by the\nBench that to hold that even without any evidence or material the Assessing Officer\nwould be empowered to estimate the income was fraught with dangerous\nconsequences. The Assessing Officer cannot presume that there

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)

reassessment proceeding. 7. On the contrary, the Ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that since the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry regarding the transaction/detail with National Shroff & Co. Hence, the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Ld. Pr. CIT was justified. 8. We have carefully considered that the assessee

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)

reassessment proceeding. 7. On the contrary, the Ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that since the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry regarding the transaction/detail with National Shroff & Co. Hence, the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Ld. Pr. CIT was justified. 8. We have carefully considered that the assessee