THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

220,81,913 45.00 27,000 45.00 27,000 Copper Zirconium 145.00 58,290 290.00 1,16,580 Chromium Metal 36.00 31,860 45.00 39,825 Bismuth Zinc 11,965.85 14,75,629 32,174.05 35,88,694 Manganese 969.50 1,58,029 153.90 21,084 Copper Phosphorus 40,950 617.80 2,12,999 90.00 Copper Tellurium 38.40 2

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

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

2) dated 21.05.2019 was issued to the assessee and served electronically. Subsequently, under faceless assessment scheme notice u/s 142(1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted

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

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

2) dated 21.05.2019 was issued to the assessee and served electronically. Subsequently, under faceless assessment scheme notice u/s 142(1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted

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

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

2) dated 21.05.2019 was issued to the assessee and served electronically. Subsequently, under faceless assessment scheme notice u/s 142(1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted

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

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

2) dated 21.05.2019 was issued to the assessee and served electronically. Subsequently, under faceless assessment scheme notice u/s 142(1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted

M/S AMBITIOUS FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Royिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Ambitious Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(4), 107, Kapad Market, Para Bazar, Rajkot Rajkot Pan : Aabca 8076 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

68 cannot be sustained in the absence of anything to establish that the source of the creditor deposited flew from the assessee itself. As enumerated by the Hon. Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravlali Trading Co. 220 CTR 0622 (Copy enclose) The Hon. High Court has been pleased to consider the guidelines of the Hon. Supreme Court provided

K B JWELLERS,GANDHIDHAM vs. ITO WARD 1 GANDHIDHAM, GADHIDHAM

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

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

220/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected as Compulsory Manual Criteria, as per CBDT instruction No. 8 of 2015 for scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act was issued on 21/09/2015, and was duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, a notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire

LILAVANTIBEN GORDHANBHAI PADARIYA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 372/Rjt/ 2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya Vs. Ito, Wd – 1(1)(3), Rajkot Vrajdham, Shardanagar Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Mabdi Road, Rajkot – 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgpp7067E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 09.09.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 04.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Upholding Validity Of Assessment U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. 2 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Confirming Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- By Way Of Alleged Difference Between Sales As Per Annual Vat Return & Sales As Per Audited Accounts By Failing To Appreciate That The Alleged Difference Was Duly Reconciled & Explained.

2 The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- by way of alleged difference between sales as per Annual VAT return and sales as per audited accounts by failing to appreciate that the alleged difference was duly reconciled and explained. Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya