SHRI VISHAL DILIP PALANY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Vishal Dilip Palani, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Vs Ward 9(4), 903, Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Alopp 0931 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 04.02.2013. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Giving Details Of The Deteriorating Health Of His Father As Well As Financial Problems Faced During The Relevant Period Which Resulted In The Said Delay. Keeping In View The Same, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Learned Departmental Representative Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We, Therefore, Shri Vishal Dilip Palani Vs. Ito Ay : 2009-10 2

unexplained cash deposits found Shri Vishal Dilip Palani Vs. ITO AY : 2009-10 3 to be made in the bank accounts of the assessee amounting to Rs.8,55,310/-, the learned CIT(A) sustained the said additions to the extent of Rs.15,93,081/- and Rs.3,41,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee

NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

investment in the purchase of the material. It is also pertinent to observe that if anything is available in accounts, then that was related to Kalahar and Sujan Infrastructure Projects. How all of a sudden a role of the assessee can be assumed. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) and finding thereof

NAVRANGPURA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

investment in the purchase of the material. It is also pertinent to observe that if anything is available in accounts, then that was related to Kalahar and Sujan Infrastructure Projects. How all of a sudden a role of the assessee can be assumed. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) and finding thereof

ASHOK KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INT. TAX, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

unexplained investment as the nature and source of the same has duly been explained by the Appellant with supporting documents, Thus, the Ld. DRP and AO are not justified in making the addition amounting to Rs.88,31,765/- under section 69 of the Act and the same deserves to be deleted. 3. The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

unexplained investment. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

unexplained investment. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

unexplained investment. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

unexplained investment. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVRAJ HARSHADRAY PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee (total investment of Rs. 1,65,86,140/- less unsecured loans duly explained Rs. 1,32,90,000/-). 21. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid addition of Rs. 32,96,140/-, whereas the Department is in appeal before us against the relief

DEVRAJ HARSHADRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee (total investment of Rs. 1,65,86,140/- less unsecured loans duly explained Rs. 1,32,90,000/-). 21. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid addition of Rs. 32,96,140/-, whereas the Department is in appeal before us against the relief

LATE SMT. RAMILABEN HARSHADRAI PATEL(THROUGH L/H DEVRAJ H.PATEL),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee (total investment of Rs. 1,65,86,140/- less unsecured loans duly explained Rs. 1,32,90,000/-). 21. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid addition of Rs. 32,96,140/-, whereas the Department is in appeal before us against the relief

NATRAJ CONSTRUCTION CO.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

investments in time deposits which remained unexplained and added the same under Section 69 of the Act 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is filing additional evidence in respect of audited books

NATRAJ CONSTRUCTION CO.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

investments in time deposits which remained unexplained and added the same under Section 69 of the Act 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is filing additional evidence in respect of audited books

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC (1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT