RAJENDRASINH RANJITSINH JADEJA,KHAKHADABELA,PADDHARI vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. were merely based on the suspicion and without any tangible material so as to suggest any escapement of income. Hence the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, 2. The ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment itself by issue of Notice u/s

NILESH ASHANAND THACKER,BHUJ vs. ITO WARD 4, GANDHIDHAM (BHUJ)

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs.20,36,554/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Nilesh A Thacker 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay

SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI

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

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

u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid and assessment made on such invalid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. I.T.A No. 148/Rjt/2021 & 09/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2017-18 Page No 5 Smt. Rani Hareram Sahani vs. ITO 5. The Ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition

SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ACIT, WARD-2 (4), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

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

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

u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid and assessment made on such invalid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. I.T.A No. 148/Rjt/2021 & 09/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2017-18 Page No 5 Smt. Rani Hareram Sahani vs. ITO 5. The Ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition

SHREE MARU KANSARA SONI GNATI,ANJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. ITA No. 789/RJT/2025 A.Y 17-18 Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati 4. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee explained the facts of the assessee’s case that assessee trust has filed its original return of income on 13.09.2017, declaring nil income, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the proceedings under section

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), DWARKA, DWARKA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condone the delay in both appeals. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.449/RJT/2025, for assessment Year 2012-13, have been taken into

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condone the delay in both appeals. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.449/RJT/2025, for assessment Year 2012-13, have been taken into

PAREEN RIAZ DOSANI,BHANVAD vs. THE ITO WARD-1, DWARKA, DWARKA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4.Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and the return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2010-11 was e-filed by the assessee, on 16/06/2013, declaring total income of Rs. 1,66,230/-, Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened u/s.147

JITENDRABHAI DEVAJIBHAI BODAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted”

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

reassessment. The proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were initiated for the A.Y. 2013-14 and accordingly after recording reasons, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.04.2020, which was duly served upon the assessee through ITBA Portal/e- mail, in response to the notice, the assessee was required to furnish his ITR in the prescribed

DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,JUNAGADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JUNAGADH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.58/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) Damjibhai Lekharjibhai Thavrani Vs. Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Ito Ward – 1 Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Income Tax Office, Bhootnath Opp. Rajkumar College, Chamber, Rajkot - 360001 Junagadh - 362001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeypt7701B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/ 05 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/ 07/2025

reassessment order, the appellant filed on appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 4. That the Ld. CIT dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal and assessee could not established the sufficient cause for filling the appeal. Hence, on order dated 13/12/2024. The appeal dismissed with following observation: “For these reasons, the delay of 1542 days in filing

BHARAT NATHABHAI BARAD,VERAVAL, GIR SOMNATH vs. ITO WARD-4, VERAVAL

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.411/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharat Nathabhai Barad Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Vinesh Enterprise, Ward-4, Village: Savani, Tal.: Veraval, Veraval. Veraval - Kodinar Highway, Dist.: Gir Somnath-362 268. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avjpb6301K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act is bad in law. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in making the huge addition of Rs.61,39,000/-u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same and dismissing the appeal

AMRAPAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,AMRAPAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 324/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Amrapar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of C/O., Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St Floor, Income Tax – 1, Dr. Radha Krishna Road, Opp. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Rajkumar Collage, Rajkot - 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaa0819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2026 : 17/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment order on an issue unrelated to the reason recorded for reopening the assessment when no income was assessed in respect of the issue of reopening. ” 3. Brief facts of the case that the assessee has not filed his return of income for AY 2018-19, as per the information received by the AO that the assessee has c cash

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)

147 r.w.s 144r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 19/02/2024, based on the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 31/03/2023 issued by the ITO, Ward-1, Nellore, i.e., JAO, therefore, we refrain from adverting to the other grounds based on which the assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) before us, which, thus, are left open

SANJAYKUMAR DHIRUBHAI HIRPARA,KHAMBHA vs. AO, ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), RAJKOT

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapura Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 I.T.A No. 260/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Sanjaykumar dhirubhai Hirapara Vs. AO., ITO (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. 2. The Registry has noticed that there is a delay of two days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained that