KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

justice settled by the Apex Court. 5. The Ld. NFAC Alleged in its impugned Order that on appellant's request, Notice under section 250 was issued scheduling the hearing through Video Conferencing on 09.02.2024 at 3.00 PM, However, there was no response from the appellant to the said opportunitygranted for hearing which is far from truth and facts

SHRI KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN,GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD 1 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act despite having rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act and overlooking the fact that the estimated addition of 12.5% of purchase value cannot be considered "any sum found credited in Books" of the Assessee, 8. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding the order of the Learned

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

natural justice. 3. The Hon’ble Pr.CIT-1, Rajkot has erred in law as well as on facts in passing a cryptic order u/s 263 of the Act bereft of any justifiable reasoning without even controverting the legal submissions of the appellant as to the non-application of Section 68

CHAMPALAL COMPANY,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable\nto income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be\nconstrued as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be\noutside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

OSWAL PETROCHEM,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable\nto income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be\nconstrued as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be\noutside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

justice settled\nby the Apex Court.\n5. The Ld. NFAC Alleged in its impugned Order that on appellant's request, Notice\nunder section 250 was issued scheduling the hearing through Video Conferencing on\n09.02.2024 at 3.00 PM, However, there was no response from the appellant to the\nsaid opportunitygranted for hearing which is far from truth and facts

OSWAL AGRICOMM PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

SHRI RAMJI HAMIR VIRDA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

MAHAVIR IMPEX,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

RISHABH STEEL SUPPLIER,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

NARENDRAKUMAR BHANWERLAL NIMBAVAT HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

PRIYANSI CORPORATION,DIST RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable\nto income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be\nconstrued as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be\noutside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

natural justice is of no value.\nSimilar finding is also given in the case of Sona Builders v. Union of India 251 ITR\n197(SC), wherein it was held that\nWhether where assessee was given, in reality, only three days to respond which was\nplainly most inadequate, and also where no document relating to sale instance was\nfurnished by appropriate

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. PCIT for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

natural justice, lack of seizure of cash and jewellery etc. He also\ndistinguished the case laws citied by the assessee stating that the assessee is neither an\nAngadia nor a Shroff.\n(vii) Thereafter in para.5.6 Ld.CIT(A) has considered that the cash deposits in the bank a/c of\nthe assessee is turnover of the assessee. On this in para.5.7

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

natural justice or without application of mind.\"\n25. This has also been subsequently upheld/followed by the Hon'ble Himachal\nPradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial\nCorporation (2010) 186 Taxmann 105(HP). We find, it is worthwhile to\nmention here that the order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is valid even

GHANSHYAMBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL,AT PO UMARDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 SURENDRANAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE IRISH BUILDING

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Surendranagar, Income Tax Near Swaminarayan Mandir, At Umarda, Vs. Office, Irish Building, Opp. Mela Ta.Muli, Dist. Surendranagar-363 510 Medan, Surendranagar-363 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brjpp 6166 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

natural justice and has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant. * Failure to Consider Merits of the Case The CIT(A) mechanically dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, failing to consider the appellant's submissions made during the assessment proceedings, and without examining the material and explanations already on record. * Reason for Non-Compliance - Medical Emergency The appellant was unable

PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

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

justice and fairness are maintained.\n6. In this immediate case of today revenue had relied upon the provision of section 32 of the Indian evidence act 1872 which is reproduced for ready reference:-\n“ 32. Cases in which statements of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc. is relevant – statements, writer or verbal, of relevant