GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, on account of\nunexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, without proper\nverification or calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.\n(2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not discharge its\nonus under section

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, on account of\nunexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, without proper\nverification or calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.\n(2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not discharge its\nonus under Section

VIREN VALLABHDAS DHAKAN,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes

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

demonetization period. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22-09-2018 . In compliance, the assessee has submitted incomplete details of the creditors. The burden is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of such credit. The assessee failed to discharge his onus to prove the credit-worthiness of the creditor/genuineness of the transaction. That

KISHORBHAI DATTANI,JAM KHAMBHALIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kishorbhai Dattani Vs. Income Tax Office, Hospital C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Road, Near Rajdhani Hotel, Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Dwarka, Gujarat 361335 Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot, Rajkot Gujarat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakpd7272M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03 / 11 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/ 02 /2026

68 of the Act. Then, the learned CIT (A) was duty- bound to reduce the same from the amount of sales as the same does Kishorbhai Dattani vs. ITO Ward – 1 Dwarka not represent the sale but unexplained cash credit. As such, the same amount cannot be held taxable twice as per the wish of the learned

M/S. LADO CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,BELA (RANGPAR), DIST. MORBI. vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 68, an Income-tax Officer was not precluded from making an inquiry about true nature and source of sum found credited in books of assessee, even if same was credited as receipt of share application money. In the case of Nisha Sharma146 taxmann.com 209 (Jabalpur - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny

M/S. PAREKH ISHWARLAL CHUNILAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. That, the Ld. PCIT has erred in invoking the revisionary powers by giving directions to the Ld. AO for applying provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act, with respect to addition made on account of unexplained income. Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. VAIBHAV GINNING SPINNING MILL PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

In the result, the Appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 826/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Dcit Vs. Vaibhav Ginning & Spinning Central Circle-2, Rajkot Mill Private Limited “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, National Highway – 27, Gondal Rajkot-360001 Rajkot Highway At Bhojpara, Gondal, Gujarat - 360311 Pan/Gir No.: Aadcv4397D (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/04/2026

demonetization period in Specified Bank Notes stood properly explained by availability of cash balance in its books, no addition thereon could be made under section 68

SHRI JORUBHA JILUBHA JADEJA,VILLAGE ZANKHAR POST VIDINAR TALUKA LALPUR, DIST JAMNAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. I.T.A No. 03/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Jorubha Jilubha Jadeja vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Senior Citizen deriving income from the machinery hiring services, Income

RAGHUVIRSINH HARISHCHANDRASINH ZALA,HALVAD vs. ITO, WD-4, MORBI, MORBI

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(in short \"the Act\"), vide order dated 24.12.2019.\n2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:\n1. The Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.\n10,00,000/- by treating cash deposited in bank account as unexplained investment

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

demonetization\nperiod 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in which SBN (old notes) cash deposit was\nat Rs. 19,00,000/-. In response to the summons, Legal heir of assessee field\nreply and informed the income tax authorities that assessee had passed\naway on 24-12-2018 and requested to drop the proceedings. Thereafter, the\ncase of the assessee was reopened

LABHUBEN KIRANBHAI RATOJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(4), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.434/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) बनाम/ Labhuben Kiranbhai Ratoja, Income Tax Officer, Chamunda Krupa, 9 Ward-1(2)(4), Vs. Ranchhodnagar Society, Rajkot Gujarat-360003 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akapr3388L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Bakul Ganatra, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.12.2019. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

68 of the Act. Labhuben K. Ratoja 2.The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the order of Ld. Income Tax Officer Wd. 1(2)(4), Rajkot that the addition of Rs. 1,08,83,000/- under the head income from other sources was chargeable under section 115BBE of the Act. 3.The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified

MAHEK TRADING,ANJAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 394/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mahek Trading Vs. Income-Tax Office, Wd-1, (Change In Firm Name Sector-8, Effective From F.Y. 2016-17) Gandhidham - 370201 12 Meter Road, Patni Bazar Anjar – 370110( Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm2604L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

demonetization period remained unexplained and hence added to the returned income of the assessee, as per the provisions of section 68

BHIMJI KARSAN GHEEWALA,PORBANDAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (3) , PORBANDAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.467/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhimji Karsan Gheewala Ito, Ward-2(3)(4) बनाम Kedareshwar Road Porbandar. Porbandar Vs. Pan : Aacfb 3513 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the cash deposit of BhimjiKarsanGheewala 3 Rs.25,82,579/-, in the bank account during demonetisation period, with supporting evidences, therefore

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)

demonetization period, so the total amount of 1.63% is being allowed for the business purpose (91,89,290*1.63%=1,50,000/-), and the amount of Rs. 90,39,290/- ( Rs.91,89,290- Rs. 1,50,000) was treated by the assessing officer as unexplained cash credit during the F.Y 2016-17, relevant to assessment year 2017–18 u/s 68

MURUBHAI HARDASBHAI VASARA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2 (4), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 554/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2017-18) Murubhai Hardasbhai Vasara Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Porbandar-360550 17, Main Bazar, Village Rana बनाम /Vs. Kandorna, Ranavav, Porbandar- 360 550 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adqpv 9119 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 69A and 68 respectively, despite the fact that assessee has Murubhai H. Vasara submitted sufficient documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the cash deposit in the bank account. 3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee before me is an individual and filed the return of income

LATE ABDULKADAR LASHKARI, LEGAL HEIR- ABDULSATAR LASHKARI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD - 2(7), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 364/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Abdulkadar Lashkari L/H Abdulsatar Lashkari Vs. The Ito Ward -2(7), Jamnagar Prop. Noori Fruit Agency Minara Fari, Vora Wad Subhash Market Jamnagar- 361001, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaepl0027C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in treating the cash deposits of Rs.50,02,000/- during the demonetization period as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

MANOJBHAI ARVINDBHAI PAREKH,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 385 /Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh The Acit Of I. T. Circle – 2(1), Shreeji Giriraj Trading, 19-Giriraj Vs. Rajkot – 360001 Chamber, Old Gadhiwas Soni Bazar, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp1471C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act, read with the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. The ld CIT(A) observed that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness

VANRAJ PROTEIN INDUSTRIES,JUNAGADH vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.104/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2017-18)

68 to 70 where was copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act was placed. Likewise, the learned AR also drew our attention on pages 71 to 75 of the paper book where the reply of the assessee in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act was placed. Thus, the learned