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)

182 Mahek Enterprise ICICI Bank CA011014 46,36,58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

182\nMahek Enterprise ICICI Bank\nCA011014\n46,36,58,157\nShree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank\nCA010058\n14,03,91,267\nBharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank\nSB00325201\n35,000\nTotal\n84,93,54,606\nThese accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to\nthe period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the\nassessee

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

182\nMahek Enterprise ICICI Bank CA011014 46,36,58,157\nShree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267\nBharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000\nTotal 84,93,54,606\nThese accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to\nthe period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the\nassessee

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

182\nMahek Enterprise ICICI Bank\nCA011014\n46,36,58,157\nShree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank\nCA010058\n14,03,91,267\nBharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank\nSB00325201\n35,000\nTotal\n84,93,54,606\nThese accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to\nthe period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the\nassessee

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

182\nMahek Enterprise ICICI Bank\nCA011014\n46,36,58,157\nShree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank\nCA010058\n14,03,91,267\nBharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank\nSB00325201\n35,000\nTotal\n84,93,54,606\nThese accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to\nthe period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the\nassessee

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

182\nMahek Enterprise ICICI Bank\nCA011014\n46,36,58,157\nShree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank\nCA010058\n14,03,91,267\nBharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank\nSB00325201\n35,000\nTotal\n84,93,54,606\nThese accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to\nthe period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the\nassessee

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

182\nMahek Enterprise ICICI Bank\nCA011014\n46,36,58,157\nShree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank\nCA010058\n14,03,91,267\nBharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank\nSB00325201\n35,000\nTotal\n84,93,54,606\nThese accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to\nthe period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the\nassessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

182\nMahek Enterprise ICICI Bank\nCA011014\n46,36,58,157\nShree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank\nCA010058\n14,03,91,267\nBharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank\nSB00325201\n35,000\nTotal\n84,93,54,606\nThese accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to\nthe period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the\nassessee

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

182\nMahek Enterprise ICICI Bank\nCA011014\n46,36,58,157\nShree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank\nCA010058\n14,03,91,267\nBharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank\nSB00325201\n35,000\nTotal\n84,93,54,606\nThese accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act does not arise. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. The second issue raised by the Revenue is that ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,00,000/- made by the AO on account of undervaluation of closing stock. 10. The assessee in its balance sheet has shown

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

182 + Rs.1,01,970).\n\n22.\nAggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before\nus.\n\n23. Shri Mehul Ranpura, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset,\nargued that the initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is itself bad in\nlaw, as the penalty notice is defective. The assessing

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

182 + Rs.1,01,970).\n22.\nAggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before\nus.\n23. Shri Mehul Ranpura, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset,\nargued that the initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is itself bad in\nlaw, as the penalty notice is defective. The assessing officer

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

182 + Rs.1,01,970).\n22.\nus.\nAggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before\n23. Shri Mehul Ranpura, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset,\nargued that the initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is itself bad in\nlaw, as the penalty notice is defective. The assessing officer

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

182 + Rs.1,01,970).\n22.\nAggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before\nus.\n23.\nShri Mehul Ranpura, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset,\nargued that the initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is itself bad in\nlaw, as the penalty notice is defective. The assessing officer

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

182 + Rs.1,01,970).\n22.\nAggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before\nus.\n23. Shri Mehul Ranpura, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset,\nargued that the initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is itself bad in\nlaw, as the penalty notice is defective. The assessing officer

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

182 + Rs.1,01,970).\n22.\nAggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before\nus.\n23. Shri Mehul Ranpura, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset,\nargued that the initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is itself bad in\nlaw, as the penalty notice is defective. The assessing officer

PARSHOTTAMBHAI MAGANLAL RAMOTIA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJKOT-1 - PCIT-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Parshottambhai Maganlal Ramotia, Vs. Pr. Cit-1 C/O. Parli Cosmetic Laser Centre Rajkot. Usha Kiran Apartment 10, Sardar Nagar Main Road Rajkot. Pan : Abjpr 3979 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri R.K. Takwani, Ld.Dr Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

68 of the Act, and subjected to tax at a higher rate i.e. 60% as prescribed under section 115BBE of the Act. 4. The facts which emerge out of the order of the ld.Pr.CIT are that during the impugned year, survey action under section 133A of the Act was carried out on the assessee on 26.02.2017, and during