IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 75/Rjt/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष (cid:91) / Assessment Year: (2021-22)

(Hybrid Hearing)

Jay PrabhudasVithlani Vs. The Principal Commissioner of

201, VarajResidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Income Tax, Gujarat – 361008 Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat – 361001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABCPV0266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.74/Rjt/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष (cid:91) / Assessment Year: (2021-22)

Khushaboo JaykumarVithlani Vs. The Principal Commissioner of

201, VarajResidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Income Tax, Gujarat – 361008 Aayakar Bhavan, Lal Wadi Main Road, Kaushal Nagar, Gujarat – 361110 (cid:725)ायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं PAN/GIR.: AEFPV6723A ./ ./

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing : 19/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:

Captioned two appeals filed by the different assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) – 2021-22, are directed against the separate order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [(in short “Ld. Pr.CIT”] u/s. 263 of the Act, both orders dated 24.01.2025.

2. Since, these two appeals filed by the different assessee for same assessment years, same and identical issues are involved, therefore, two appeals (ITA 75 & 74 /Rjt/2025, for Assessment Year 2021-22) have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case, in ITA

75/Rjt/2025, for Assessment Year 2021-22, are as follows:

“1. The order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Jamnagar under section 263 of the Income Tax Act dated 24.01 2025 is bad in law as well as on facts and is required to be quashed as the same is passed without satisfying the twin conditions as prescribed under the law.

2. Based on the facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the Ld. PCIT. Jamnagar is bad in law as well as on facts as he has failed to consider that all the purchasing parties are duly verified during the course of assessment proceedings as appellant has provided the bill wise details such as supplier name, supplier address. PAN, GST registration no., Product details, quantity purchased, Name of Transporter. Address of Transporter, Mode of Transportation and also mentioning Vehicle No. All such details are provided during the course of assessment proceedings as well as revisionary proceedings, however none of the lower authorities has ever considered these information to draw fair conclusion of the purchase transaction undertaken by the appellant.

3. Based on the facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the Id. PCIT is bad in law as well as on facts as the revisionary order passed is merely based on the allegation that supplier parties of the appellant are not genuine, Ld. PCIT failed to bring any concrete evidence which suggest that purchases made by appellant from the mentioned parties, even when all the parties have filed their GST returns such as 1 and 3B by payment of the taxes as collected from the appellant, and proof of the same is submitted before both the authorities.

4. The order passed by the Ld. PCIT, Jamnagar is bad in law as well as on the facts as whole revisionary proceeding is based on the mere reason that purchase parties have "either Non-Filers, had filed non-business ITRs, or had shown substantially low turnover which is not legal action to initiate that proceedings in case of appellant, whether to purchases can merely be bogus if supplier has not filed the ITR?

5. Based on the facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the Id. PCIT is bad in law as well as on facts as the revisionary order passed as Ld.

PCIT has