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

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

revision order, including the case reported in (2022)139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta), Pr. / Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Swati Bajaj. 12. Therefore, learned PCIT held that these above facts were glaring and apparent from the records available with the Assessing Officer but the assessing officer has not taken any cognizance of these facts during the course of assessment proceedings

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

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

revision order, including the case reported in (2022)139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta), Pr. / Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Swati Bajaj. 12. Therefore, learned PCIT held that these above facts were glaring and apparent from the records available with the Assessing Officer but the assessing officer has not taken any cognizance of these facts during the course of assessment proceedings

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

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

revision order, including the case reported in (2022)139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta), Pr. / Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Swati Bajaj. 12. Therefore, learned PCIT held that these above facts were glaring and apparent from the records available with the Assessing Officer but the assessing officer has not taken any cognizance of these facts during the course of assessment proceedings

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

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

revision order, including the case reported in (2022)139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta), Pr. / Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Swati Bajaj. 12. Therefore, learned PCIT held that these above facts were glaring and apparent from the records available with the Assessing Officer but the assessing officer has not taken any cognizance of these facts during the course of assessment proceedings

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.

section 68 of the Act and therefore, the aggregated amount of Rs.12,59,28,000/- was required to be disallowed u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of assessee while finalizing the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act which has not been done. 5. Therefore, ld.PCIT noted that above facts are sufficient

VIJUBHA JITUBHA JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

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

68 of the Act, the assessee’s plea that it could not have been made under the said section cannot be entertained in revisionary proceedings. The scope of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act is limited to revision

LEADER ELECTRIC CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.376 & 377/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15& 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Leader Electric Co. The Pcit – 1, Vs. Dindayal Industries Estates, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aji Vasahat, Opp. Gamara Hostel, Road, Rajkot - 360003 Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfl6072C (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,879/- alleged to be carried out by the Appellant with M/s. National Shroff. 3. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income tax -1, Rajkot failed to appreciate that the impugned issue was duly examined by the AO by way of specific inquiry/notice and replied thereto, while finalizing assessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and hence there

M/S. PERTH CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 191/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 M/S. Perth Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of At. Unchi Mandal, Vs. Income Tax-3, Opp. 66 Kva Sub Station, Rajkot. Morbi-363641. Pan: Aahcp6296P

section 68 of the Act. 4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Rajkot initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act in respect of the captioned assessment year, in response to which the assessee filed written submissions on 05/02/2019. The Pr. CIT-3 after considering the written submissions of the assessee held that the twin conditions, firstly that the order

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

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

revision u/s 263 was passed on 13.09.2016 and AO was directed to re-assess the income of the assessee depicting the following issues: (a) Share Capital introduced during the year under consideration; (b) Unsecured Loans (squared up or not) raised during the year; (c) Sundry Creditors, and (d) Sustainability of claim u/s 32AC 3. Accordingly, a notices u/s

ABROAD VITRIFIED PVT LTD,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.144/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 68 of the Income Tax Act and therefore, the aggregate amount of Rs. 10,94,85,000/- was required to be disallowed u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee while finalizing the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, which has not been done, by the assessing officer. 4. Therefore

M/S. SARJU VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI-363641 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 68 of the Act. Thus, it is not a case of lack of inquiry as assumed by the ld. PCIT. There is a clear difference between ‘lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. The ld. PCIT cannot revise the assessment order u/s. 263

LEADER ELECTRIC CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

68,879/- alleged to be carried out by the Appellant with M/s. National Shroff. 3. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income tax -1, Rajkot failed to appreciate that the impugned issue was duly examined by the AO by way of specific inquiry/notice and replied thereto, while finalizing assessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and hence there

M/S. LEOPARD VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,VILLAGE MATEL, DIST. MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

revision under section 263 was not permissible as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. (243 ITR 83). As regards proviso to section 68, the assessee contended that when no addition can be made u/s

M\S. LEXICO CERAMICS,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

68 of the Act on account of capital introduced by the 2 partner only. Thus, the allegation of Pr. CIT for initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO has not made enquiries or verification with regard to other partners is factually incorrect. At this juncture we also feel pertinent to refer the judgment

M/S. ICONIC INFRABUILD LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT- CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Iconic Infrabuild Llp The Pr.Cit, Central 75, Nandkishor Ahmedabad. University Road Gangotri Park Opp: Bts, Rajkot. Pan : Aaifc 5100 F (Applicant) (Responent)

revised is passed. In the present case the order u/s 263 of the Act being passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee , the same is not sustainable and needs to be set aside. 8. Again in the case of CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan in Civil Appeal No. 5009 & 5010 of 2016 dt 11th May 2016, while dealing with

CLAYMINE MICRONS LLP,WANKANER vs. PRINCIPAL CIT 1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 216/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns Llp Vs. Pcit Survey No. 59 At Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 Pan/Gir No.: Aamfc4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026

263 of I. T. Act as the twin conditions namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous: and (i) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue are satisfied. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 23/04/2021

M/S. EMBOZA GRANITO PVT. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017

section 68 of the Act. 5. The Ld. PCIT also found that assessee during the year shown has shown addition to fixed assets for Rs. 39,90,99,107 on which, it claimed depreciation of Rs. 6,25,34,642/- and additional depreciation u/s 32AC of the Act for Rs. 5,10,68,759/- only. On question

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

68 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act. Therefore, in our view it is not a case where the AO had not made due enquiries and also not the case where the AO had not applied his mind during the course of assessment proceedings on the issue in hand. Regarding the scope of proceedings u/s 263