ITAT Surat Judgments — February 2026

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR - 2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs SHREE SAYAN VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD, SURAT

ITA 908/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal observed that the excess payment for sugarcane was made to members and rightly distributed. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition regarding these payments was upheld. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 1112/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions on which the penalty was levied were purely estimated additions. Following its own previous decisions in the cases of the assessee's sister concerns, the Tribunal found that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions. Therefore, the impugned penalty was ordered to be deleted.

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 1108/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions on which the penalty was levied were purely estimated additions. Following its own previous decisions in the cases of the assessee's sister concerns, the Tribunal found that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions. Therefore, the impugned penalty was ordered to be deleted.

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 1110/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions on which the penalty was levied were purely estimated additions. Following its own previous decisions in the cases of the assessee's sister concerns, the Tribunal found that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions. Therefore, the impugned penalty was ordered to be deleted.

BHARATSINH JAYSINH VARACHHIYA,BHARUCH vs ITO, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH

ITA 1175/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence of agricultural income, including sales invoices and proof of earlier year's agricultural income, which constituted the source of the cash deposits. Consequently, the additions and penalty were not justifiable.

BHARATSINH JAYSINH VARACHHIA,BHARUCH vs ITO, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH

ITA 376/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence of agricultural income, including sales invoices and proof of earlier year's agricultural income, which constituted the source of the cash deposits. Consequently, the additions and penalty were not justifiable.

THE SANDHIAR GROUP COOP COTTON GORWERS ASSOCIATION LTD,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 768/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

MANISH BHOGILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-3, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

ITA 687/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

SACHIN SALES AGENCY,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 1021/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. To serve the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 1111/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions on which the penalty was levied were purely estimated additions. Following its own previous decisions in the cases of the assessee's sister concerns, the Tribunal found that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions. Therefore, the impugned penalty was ordered to be deleted.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT vs SHREE SAYAN VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD, SURAT

ITA 901/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal observed that the excess payment for sugarcane was made to members and rightly distributed. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition regarding these payments was upheld. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 1107/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions on which the penalty was levied were purely estimated additions. Following its own previous decisions in the cases of the assessee's sister concerns, the Tribunal found that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions. Therefore, the impugned penalty was ordered to be deleted.

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 1109/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions on which the penalty was levied were purely estimated additions. Following its own previous decisions in the cases of the assessee's sister concerns, the Tribunal found that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions. Therefore, the impugned penalty was ordered to be deleted.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT vs HAYWOOD HOSPITALITY(INDIA) PVT. LTD, SURAT

ITA 880/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. Regarding salary expenses, the assessee provided employee-wise details and there was no evidence of non-genuine payments or diversion of funds. For foreign expenses, the Tribunal found them to be reimbursements not attracting TDS, and non-deduction of TDS was not the sole criterion for disallowance. The addition on account of undisclosed receipts was also deleted as the assessee provided evidence and claimed TDS credit.

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It found the valuation of jewellery and the application of a 4% job work rate to be reasonable.

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It found the valuation of jewellery and the application of a 4% job work rate to be reasonable.

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It found the valuation of jewellery and the application of a 4% job work rate to be reasonable.

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-SURAT, SURAT vs ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL, SURAT

ITA 902/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals. It found that the trust's activities, primarily executing government contracts, constituted business and were not in the nature of general public utility or charitable activities as required for exemption.

ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL,SURAT vs CIT EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

ITA 838/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals. It found that the trust's activities, primarily executing government contracts, constituted business and were not in the nature of general public utility or charitable activities as required for exemption.

SHRI RAGHUBHAI VIRABHAI BHARWAD,NA vs ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, NAVSARI

ITA 236/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition for trading profit was not substantiated by evidence, as the assessee never acquired ownership, the agreements were not legally enforceable, and the transaction was cancelled. Similarly, additions for unexplained investments under section 69 were deleted as the jottings represented repayments related to the cancelled land deal and not unexplained investments by the assessee. Consequently, the penalty under section 271B, based on the disputed turnover, was also ordered to be obliterated.

SHRI RAGHUBHAI VIRABHAI BHARWAD,NA vs ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, NAVSARI

ITA 237/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition for trading profit was not substantiated by evidence, as the assessee never acquired ownership, the agreements were not legally enforceable, and the transaction was cancelled. Similarly, additions for unexplained investments under section 69 were deleted as the jottings represented repayments related to the cancelled land deal and not unexplained investments by the assessee. Consequently, the penalty under section 271B, based on the disputed turnover, was also ordered to be obliterated.

SHANKARLAL PRAYAGCHAND PUROHIT,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 714/SRT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, a licensed commission agent, provided sufficient evidence (mandi licence, receipts, farmer affidavits, revenue records) proving the payments were made to farmers for agricultural produce sold on their behalf. Hence, Section 40A(3) was not attracted.

SWETA ORGANISERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 256/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte. Considering that the assessee missed a single notice, the tribunal decided to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).

NARESHBHAI BABUBHAI SAVANI,SURAT vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, SURAT

ITA 790/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under section 153C, the relevant date for computing the six-year period is the date when the seized material is handed over to the jurisdictional AO of the other person, not the date of the original search. As AY 2014-15 falls beyond this period, the assessment is barred by limitation.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN, DAMAN vs UMESH BHAGUBHAI PATEL, DAMAN

ITA 902/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a money transfer agent for Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd., and the cash deposits were related to this agency business. The assessee had offered the commission income for taxation, and the AO could not rebut the assessee's contentions during remand proceedings.

GORDHANBHAI L MORADIA,SURAT vs ITO WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 375/SRT/2025[2012-2013]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013Remanded

The Tribunal observed that neither the Assessing Officer (AO) nor the CIT(A) had provided proper opportunities to the assessee. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN, DAMAN vs UMESH BHAGUBHAI PATEL, DAMAN

ITA 911/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a money transfer agent for Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd., and the cash deposits were related to this agency business. The assessee had offered the commission income for taxation, and the AO could not rebut the assessee's contentions during remand proceedings.

RAKESH JAYANTILAL LAKDAWALA L/H KALAVATIBEN JAYANTILAL LAKADAWALA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 688/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo assessment.

DILIPKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,NA vs ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

ITA 62/SRT/2024[ 2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026Remanded

The tribunal observed that the assessee, claiming to be an agriculturist, might not have had readily available documents during the assessment proceedings and that the CIT(A) had dismissed the additional evidence. To ensure justice, the tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to present his case and evidence before the CIT(A).

PRAGNABEN JAYESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT GUJARAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

ITA 885/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12Remanded

The tribunal noted that the assessee contended the cash deposits were withdrawals from her husband's bank account. To ensure justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for verification of the source of deposits in both the assessee's and her husband's accounts.

KANAN ANILKUMAR PATEL ,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 905/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. Considering the circumstances, including the delay in filing the appeal due to communication issues, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

RATIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI KAKANI,SURAT vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 1025/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not sustainable. The difference between the DVO's valuation and the purchase consideration was within the 10% tolerance band prescribed by law, and the property was purchased through a public auction, with no evidence of any undisclosed payment.

SHAILENDRA VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,NA vs ARIVS.ITO, WARD 5, NAVSARI

ITA 135/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned subject to the payment of costs.

SUNIL KUMAR BAHETI,SURAT vs PCIT (CENTRAL), SURAT

ITA 579/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted due enquiry regarding the cash investment and had accepted the assessee's explanation in the absence of corroborative evidence, making it a plausible view. Similarly, for house property income, the AO had considered the assessee's explanations. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's order was based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible under section 263.

SATISH SHANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 1(3)(5), SURAT

ITA 734/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with notices and provide necessary documentation before both the lower authorities. However, to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter for de novo assessment by the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to submit all relevant documents.

NITINBHAI POPATBHAI SAVANI,SURAT vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLE 2, SURAT

ITA 791/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under section 153C, the relevant date for computing the six-year period is the date when the seized material is handed over to the jurisdictional AO of the other person, not the date of the original search. As AY 2014-15 falls beyond this period, the assessment is barred by limitation.

MEGHNA ORGANIC,VALSAD vs ITO, WARD-5, VAPI

ITA 824/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Remanded

The tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO was invalid as it should have been issued under the Faceless Regime as per Section 151A. The reopening of assessment and subsequent actions were therefore challenged. The tribunal also noted grounds related to disallowance of cost of improvement and initiation of penalties under various sections.

MAHEBOOB ABBAS SHAIKH,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 876/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 23.07.2022 was beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid notice were deemed void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

KAMLESHKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL PATEL,VALSAD vs ITO, WARD 2, VALSAD

ITA 890/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was unwarranted, noting the consistent agricultural income of the assessee in previous years ranged between Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 7 lakhs. The declared higher amount was considered a typographical error and the total income was revised accordingly.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs ASHOK KUMAR JINDAL, SURAT

ITA 938/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued after April 1, 2021, was invalid as it was time-barred. This was in accordance with the proviso to Section 149(1) and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

KAVITA JAIN,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 428/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that based on CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022, issued pursuant to the Ashish Agarwal judgment, reassessment notices under Section 148 for AY 2014-15 could only be issued if the escaped income was Rs. 50 lakhs or more. Since the alleged escaped income was Rs. 48,72,642/-, which is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.

ANKUR MOTORS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 468/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were supported by opening cash balance and cash sales, as reflected in the audited books of account. The addition under section 68 was not sustainable as there was no adverse material to doubt the reliability of the books.

VALLABHBHAI DUDABHAI CHHATRALA,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-3(3) (1), SURAT

ITA 815/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to produce any cogent material or evidence to establish that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration recorded in the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explained the source of their investment and that no evidence of 'on money' payment was brought on record. The Tribunal also noted that Section 56(2)(x)(b) was not applicable for the assessment year in question.

NAFISHABIBI DAVJI,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

ITA 1234/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering that new evidence was available and the previous authorities did not have a complete picture, remanded the quantum addition back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside.

NAFISHABIBI DAVJI,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

ITA 1233/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering that new evidence was available and the previous authorities did not have a complete picture, remanded the quantum addition back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside.

SANKETKUMAR DIPAKBHAI VASHI,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 5, NAVSARI

ITA 1092/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2026AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the cash deposits of Rs. 27,62,395/- by providing details of cash withdrawals, joint account usage, and insurance premium payments, which the CIT(A) had failed to consider. For credit entries, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained most of the entries, with only Rs. 59,000/- remaining un-explained. Consequently, the addition for cash deposits was deleted and the addition for credit entries was partly confirmed.

NILESHKUMAR KANTILAL MODI,ANKHLESHWAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARUCH

ITA 532/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CPC's observation of no response from the assessee was incorrect. The Judicial Officer (JAO) was directed to consider the assessee's response and reconciliation statement, and then adjudicate the matter as per the Income Tax Act.

SANKETKUMAR DIPAKBHAI VASHI,NA vs ARIVS.ITO, WARD-5, NAVSARI

ITA 1054/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2026AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the cash deposits of Rs. 27,62,395/- by providing details of cash withdrawals, joint account usage, and insurance premium payments, which the CIT(A) had failed to consider. For credit entries, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained most of the entries, with only Rs. 59,000/- remaining un-explained. Consequently, the addition for cash deposits was deleted and the addition for credit entries was partly confirmed.

NAFISHABIBI DAVJI,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

ITA 1235/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering that new evidence was available and the previous authorities did not have a complete picture, remanded the quantum addition back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside.

NILESHKUMAR KANTILAL MODI,ANKLESHWAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARUCH

ITA 530/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2026AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CPC's observation of no response from the assessee was incorrect. The Judicial Officer (JAO) was directed to consider the assessee's response and reconciliation statement, and then adjudicate the matter as per the Income Tax Act.