“speaking order”

Preeti Singhvi L/H Shri Ajay Singhvi, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

facts and circumstances of the case whether AO was F. justified in rejecting the objections raised by the assessee (on 28.12.2017) without speaking order and reasoning? Whether his rejection was not in contravention to the guideline laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN case and also against

Goyal Knitfab Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.455/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Goyal Knitfab Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Block No.505, National Highway Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Vs No.8, Palsana, Surat-394315 Surat, Room # 108, Info@Goyalknitfab.Com Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Pan No: Aabcg 3803 B Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and by a non-speaking order. 2.1 The appeal may be kindly restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh hearing and opportunity. 2.Personal hearing may be granted. Goyal Knitfab Pvt.Ltd

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

facts in not at all discussing and dealing with the submissions made before him. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in passing a non-speaking order in violation of mandate of Sec. 250(6) requiring a well-reasoned and speaking order from him. But theId. CIT(A) completely failed

Lalita Sanjivreddy Bodkurwar, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

inquiry. As an adjudicator he has to collect the facts and after analyzing them as per law and judicial precedents has to pass a speaking order. The argument of the assessee is correct, that if a possible opinion has been taken, then just because a different opinion is possible, jurisdiction ... material is not available on records. The Assessing Officer is directed to conduct a proper inquiry and verification of the facts and pass a speaking order. The assessee should be given a proper opportunity of being heard, before finalization of the assessment.” 4.1. Learned counsel vehemently submitted during the course

Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. ITA.456/SRT/2023/AY.2011-12 Bhavin Arunbhai Patel 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.166/Srt/2022 (Ay 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Commissioner Of Income Tax Bar Association, 208, Titanium (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Vs Business Hub, Opp. Bhimrad Room 15, Aaykar Bhavan, Police Chowky, Bhimrad, Ashram Road, Navrangpura, Surat-395017 Ahmedabad-380009 Pan No. Aabai 4058 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

78/Srt/2019, with the direction to examine the object and the 3 ITAT Bar Association Surat activities of the assessee and to pass speaking order in accordance with law. 6. The Ld. CIT(E) in terms of direction of this Bench considered the plea of assessee afresh

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

record all the material in support of its claim that its case falls under rule 6DD. Thereafter, Ld. AO shall pass reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 11 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed." 8. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

record all the material in support of its claim that its case falls under rule 6DD. Thereafter, Ld. AO shall pass reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 11 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed." 8. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

record all the material in support of its claim that its case falls under rule 6DD. Thereafter, Ld. AO shall pass reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 11 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed." 8. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High

Jhumuklal Panigrahi, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur, Bastar

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jhumuklal Panigrahi Prop. M/S. Jhumuklal Panigrahi & Sons, Ward No.9, Bhahmanpara, Main Road, Karitgaon, Dist. Bastar (C.G.)-494 221 Pan : Bjnpp2195L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur, Dist. Baster (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Ward-Jagdalpur, Baster and disposed off the appeal in the name of the deceased assessee, and that too based on a non-speaking order. Backed by the facts above, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter be restored to the CIT(Appeals). 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative

Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel, Adipur vs. DCIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

however, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) pointing out that ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order analyzing the provisions of Section 271AAB of the Act and further derived authority from two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data

Vishal Rajendra Madhavani, Surat vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.557/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Vishal Rajendra Madhavani, Vs. The Assessing Officer, A-702, Silver Spring Apartment, National Faceless Assessment Shree Ram Petrol Pump, Anand Centre (Nfac), Mahal Road, Surat – 395009. Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Asapm7005R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2023

case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also ITA.557/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Vishal Rajendra Madhavani directed to contest his stand

Firoj Jamshedji Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.532/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Firoj Jamshedji Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ground Floor At & Post Mora Ward – 2(3)(6), Parsiwad, Moragam, Surat Surat – 394510 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bhjpp9558B (Appellant) (Respondent)

r.w.s.147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex- parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 7. Since, in assessee’s case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.112/Srt/2021 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, 9Th Trivedi Niwas, Rashtriya Vs Surat, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Shala Road, Ville Parle West, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Mumbai-400056 Surat-395001 Pan No. Aadcd 2089 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

opening was supplied to assessee. The assessee filed his objection against such re-opening on 14.09.2015. The objection of assessee was rejected by speaking order dated 17.11.2015. The Assessing Officer after rejection of objection proceeded for re- assessment. Notice under section 143(2) was served on 11.09.2015. 3. During

Pradhan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT Circle -1(1), Cuttack

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.263/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) M/S Pradhan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Mahanadi Vihar Road, Sikharpur, Cuttack-753003 Pan No. :Aaccp 9795 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.06.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053602705(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Issue In This Appeal Was In Respect Of Two Additions Representing Loss & Damages & Bad Debt. It Was The Submission That In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Though Substantial Documents Have Been Produced, However, The Ld. Cit(A) In Para 5.3 Of His Order Has Held That “In Absence Of Any Concrete Documentary Evidence, The Appeal Cannot Be Adjudicated And, Therefore, Additions Made By The Ld. Ao Is Upheld. It Was The Submission That If The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Satisfied With The Evidence As Produced, Then It Was Incumbent

rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not a speaking order. Hearing on an appeal does not mean blindly adjudicated on the basis of just the evidence as produced by the assessee. In an appellate ... assessee needs to be further substantiated. In these circumstances, it is noticed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order. Therefore, issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard