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)

133(6) of the Act were made, where in the bank statement of Indian Overseas Bank was received, that reflected the cash deposits in A/c. No. I.T.A No. 487/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 4 Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra 339433000000002 of Rs. 78,26,790/- and in A/c. No. 339402000000019 of Rs. 13,62,500/-. 7. Since, the assessee is a proprietor

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

6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that assessee has raised the additional ground on the legal issue challenging the validity of 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

M/S. SHREE SIDHNATH ENTERPRISE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/S Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot.

u/s. H7 is not permissible for the purpose of mere verification of any issue. The A.O, ought to have requisite prima-facie belief that there is an escapement of income. Thus, the mandate and pre-requisite of Section 147 is not fulfilled and hence, the reopening is bad in law on the ground of absence of reason to believe. Apex

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)

133(6) of the Act to the third party, to make enquiry. The assessee submitted the documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer at the fag-end when the Assessing Officer did not have any option but to complete the assessment without having conducted any proper enquiry. The ld DR also submitted that on appeal, by the assessee, before Ld.CIT

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

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

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)

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the assessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have been left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly, assessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on further appeal by assessee, before

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

section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. f. As the present case fall in the time limit of 4 years to 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval of the Pr.CIT is sought". 5. The assessing officer, therefore, observed that Client Code Modification means modification / change of the client codes after execution of trades

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 to Rs. 6

M/S PANCHNATH ENTERPRISE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeals are allowed

133(6) of the Act dated 13.01.2014. In compliance to the same, ICICI Bank Limited's branch/office situated at 433, Nalanda Society, Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360005, vide letter dated 12.02.2014, has replied that "based on information furnished by your office, we are unable to trace the details desired by your office for account no 10605004905. In view of the same

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