FORTUNE DEVELOPERS,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act and same was also A.Y. 2012-13 4 confirmed by the learned CIT (A). The AO also initiated the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 10. It is trite of law that the penalty proceedings are different from assessment proceeding. Any addition

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)

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

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

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these\nbank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true &\ncorrect. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these\ntransactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts,\nthere is no other evidence to decide

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

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these\nbank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true &\ncorrect. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these\ntransactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts,\nthere is no other evidence to decide

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

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these\nbank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true &\ncorrect. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these\ntransactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts,\nthere is no other evidence to decide

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

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

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

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these\nbank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true &\ncorrect. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these\ntransactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts,\nthere is no other evidence to decide

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

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these\nbank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true &\ncorrect. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these\ntransactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts,\nthere is no other evidence to decide

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

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these\nbank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true &\ncorrect. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these\ntransactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts,\nthere is no other evidence to decide

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

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these\nbank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true &\ncorrect. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these\ntransactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts,\nthere is no other evidence to decide

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

68 is being proposed because the\nassessee has been maintaining books of accounts in one form or another. Alternatively,\nassessee can be considered owner of cash-deposited in bank-accounts owned by the\nassessee under Sec. 69A, even under general provisions of taxation, as per relied upon\nauthorities, supra.\n13. Notice of hearing of this appeal was sent

INAYATALIKHAN A. PATHAN,,VERAVAL vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

292. The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Rameshbhai Jivarbhai Desai (2020 Taxmann.com 333. On merit, the Ld. AR submitted that during the course of search carried out at the various business premises of the Gopal Group, not a single document or data was recovered evidencing

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

292 ITR 11 (SC) held that “concealment of income" and "furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income" carry different connotations. The Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.)\nheld that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and\nthe position being unclear penalty

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

292 ITR 11 (SC) held that “concealment of income" and "furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income" carry different connotations. The Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.)\nheld that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and\nthe position being unclear penalty

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

292 ITR 11 (SC) held that “concealment of income" and "furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income" carry different connotations. The Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.)\nheld that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and\nthe position being unclear penalty

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

292 ITR 11 (SC) held that “concealment of income\" and \"furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income\" carry different connotations. The Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.)\nheld that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and\nthe position being unclear penalty

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

292 ITR 11 (SC) held that “concealment of income\" and \"furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income\" carry different connotations. The Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.)\nheld that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and\nthe position being unclear penalty