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)

147 were quashed. In another judgment of Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. (356 ITR 481), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court once again held that the power of reassessment cannot be exercised for the purpose of verification. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court in this judgment is reproduced hereunder: (Quote) "18. Reverting to the facts of the present

YESHA DHIRAJLAL THAKRAR,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

reassessment order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act(DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/ 1035663980(1), wherein addition of Rs. 1,90

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 of the Act, on the basis of information received through insight portal. As per the information received through insight portal, the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 91,89,290/- in bank accounts maintained with Indian Overseas Bank A/c. No. 339433000000002 of Rs. 78,26,790/- and A/c. No. 339402000000019 of Rs. 13,62,500/-, total

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

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

90,894/- is required to be added to your total income and should be taxed accordingly. 5. As such, the order passed by the assessing officer prima facie is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

90,894/- is required to be added to your total income and should be taxed accordingly. 5. As such, the order passed by the assessing officer prima facie is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

90,894/- is required to be added to your total income and should be taxed accordingly. 5. As such, the order passed by the assessing officer prima facie is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

90,894/- is required to be added to your total income and should be taxed accordingly. 5. As such, the order passed by the assessing officer prima facie is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order

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

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

147 to 151 including the insertion provision of section 148A providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. v. ITO reported in [2002] 125 Taxman 963/259 ITR 19 (SC). ITA Nos.519 & 521/Rjt/2025 (AY 13-14 & 14-15) Jivanbhai D Sarla

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

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

147 to 151 including the insertion provision of section 148A providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. v. ITO reported in [2002] 125 Taxman 963/259 ITR 19 (SC). ITA Nos.519 & 521/Rjt/2025 (AY 13-14 & 14-15) Jivanbhai D Sarla

SMT. HARSHIDABEN M. POBARU,,JAMNAGAR. vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , JAMNAGAR.

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.371/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T, Smt. Harshidaben M. Pobaru, Circle-1, Vs. “Gokul’’, Park Colony, Jamnagar. Jamnagar-361008. Pan: Acmpp9140J

Reassessment has to be based on "fresh material". A reopening based on reappraisal of existing material is invalid. There was no tangible material before the Assessing Officer to form the belief that the income had escaped assessment and therefore, reopening of assessment under section 147 was not valid. We rely upon following judicial precedents a. Balakrishna Hiralal Wani

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

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

90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. [This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19] 4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of assessee and revenue, as follows. 5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready reference. “1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding

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

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

90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. [This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19] 4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of assessee and revenue, as follows. 5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready reference. “1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding

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

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

90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. [This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19] 4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of assessee and revenue, as follows. 5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready reference. "1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding

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

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

90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. [This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19] 4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of assessee and revenue, as follows. 5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready reference. “1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding

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

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

90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. [This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19] 4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of assessee and revenue, as follows. 5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready reference. “1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding

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

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

90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. [This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19] 4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of assessee and revenue, as follows. 5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready reference. “1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. MAULESH D. UKANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

147 of the Act. It is evident from the above discussion that in this case, the issues under consideration were never examined by the AO during the course of regular assessment/ reassessment. This fact is corroborated from the notices issued by the AO, material on record and various order sheet entries. It is important to highlight here that material facts