HUSENI STATIONERY & PAPER MART,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GODHRA, GODHRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 1971/Ahd/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 41,77,000/- in its bank account during the demonetization

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

demonetization period as unexplained money\nu/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer\nassessed the income at Rs.1,03,04,377/- and demanded tax\nthereon.\n3. Aggrieved against the reassessment

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

demonetization period as unexplained money u/s.69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs.1,03,04,377/- and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment

DUSHYANT SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

demonetization period between 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016.\nThe assessee was called upon to explain the source of these cash\ndeposits and to substantiate it with documentary evidence. Despite\nrepeated notices and show cause opportunities, the assessee did not\nfurnish any explanation. In view of the absence of any credible source,\nthe AO treated the said cash deposit as unexplained money under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment notice issued u/s.148 of the Act for AY 2015-16, as per concession given by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was invalid and, therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment for AY 2015-16 after coming into operation of the provisions of section 147 of the Act under new regime, w.e.f

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment notice issued u/s.148 of the Act for AY 2015-16, as per concession given by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was invalid and, therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment for AY 2015-16 after coming into operation of the provisions of section 147 of the Act under new regime, w.e.f

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment notice issued u/s.148 of the Act for AY 2015-16, as per concession given by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was invalid and, therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment for AY 2015-16 after coming into operation of the provisions of section 147 of the Act under new regime, w.e.f

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment notice issued u/s.148 of the Act for AY 2015-16, as per concession given by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was invalid and, therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment for AY 2015-16 after coming into operation of the provisions of section 147 of the Act under new regime, w.e.f

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. LATE KHODAJI RANCHHODJI THAKOR LEGAL HEIR NARENDAKUMAR KHODAJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.948/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito Late Khodaji Ranchhodji Ward-4(2)(1) बनाम/ Thakor V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Legal Heir Narendrakumar Khodaji Thakor Ahmedabad – 382 481 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afwpt 1453 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

demonetization period and that large credit entries had also been recorded throughout the year. The AO also verified information through the Annual Information Report (AIR) and the AIMS database, which revealed a mismatch between the total cash deposits reported by the bank (Rs. 6.34 lakh) and that reflected in departmental data (Rs. 15.05 lakh). The assessee was further found

ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Demonetization, wherein for small individuals a cash limit of Rs.2.5 lacs was considered as explained. The appellant contended that in his statement recorded on oath at the time of search, he had stated that he had been working with Sankalp Group since past 27 years and drawing a salary of Rs.39,000/- per month and his daughter was also doing

MANOJ MOHANDAS SUKHWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 273/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Manoj Mohandas Sukhwani, 103, 104, 1St Floor, Elegance The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Arcade, Nr. Bank Of India, Ward-6(1)(3), Station Road, Maninagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380008 Pan : Bayps 0941 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S K Sadhwani, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

demonetization in cash in banks. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee had been granted a certificate accepting the assessee’s disclosure of Rs.53.27 lakhs made under the PMGKY-2016 Scheme. Copy of the same was placed before us at paper-book page No. 54. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was that when

PRADIPKUMAR ARVINDBHAI KOTHARI,BOTAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(10), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

demonetization period was used to purchase goods from this supplier, Anchor Health & Beauty Care. The addition of total credits in the bank account amounting to Rs.1,11,98,244/- was erroneous, due to a lack of thorough analysis and consideration of the financial circumstances of the assessee. The assessee submitted that the AO focused solely on bank deposits while neglecting

VIJAYBHAI LAXMICHAND DEMLA L/H OF LATE SHRI LAXMICHAND PAHLUMAL DEMLA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

demonetization period, along with sources thereof. The assesse's legal heir has denied that he does not have any documents of his father in his possession and refused to accept any responsibility in the matter vide his letter received in this office dated 12/12/2019. But the department after perusal of the bank statement of the assessee i.e. Laxmichand Pahlumal Demla

DHAVAL DILIPKUMAR THAKKAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE DILIPKUMAR AMRUTLAL THAKKAR,KHEDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 NADIAD FORMERLY WARD-2, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 787/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dhaval Dilipkumar Thakkar, बनाम Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Late Shri Dilipkumar Ward-1, Nadiad Vs. Amrutlal Thakkar, (Formerly Ito, Ward-2, At Narsanda, Gujarat-388120 Nadiad) Pan : Akxpt 6003 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr Dr ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 12.09.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows :- “1. The Ld. A.O. Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Issuing Order U/S 143(3) In The Name Of Dead Person. The Notice So Issued Is Illegal/And Invalid In Law. The Order Passed Consequent To Such Illegal/Invalid Notice Is Prayed To Be Quashed. 2. Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. A.O. Making Addition Of Cash Deposited Of Rs. 13,00,000/- During Demonetization Period. Thus, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Therefore The Appeal Of The Appellant Be Allowed.”

demonetization of Rs.15 lacs. 7. The order passed is in clear violation of law. Section 159 of the Act provides the machinery for assessment of income of a deceased person providing for continuing proceedings against the legal representative of the deceased and fixing liability on the representative to pay taxes on the income assessed to the extent of assets inherited

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee so as to facilitate the Bench in adjudicating the issue, which is before the Bench for it’s consideration. Accordingly, the Department vide letter dated 15.03.2024, submitted before us the information regarding the report of the Investigation Wing and other related documents. 12. On going through the contents of the report

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee so as to facilitate the Bench in adjudicating the issue, which is before the Bench for it’s consideration. Accordingly, the Department vide letter dated 15.03.2024, submitted before us the information regarding the report of the Investigation Wing and other related documents. 12. On going through the contents of the report

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee so as to facilitate the Bench in adjudicating the issue, which is before the Bench for it’s consideration. Accordingly, the Department vide letter dated 15.03.2024, submitted before us the information regarding the report of the Investigation Wing and other related documents. 12. On going through the contents of the report

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee so as to facilitate the Bench in adjudicating the issue, which is before the Bench for it’s consideration. Accordingly, the Department vide letter dated 15.03.2024, submitted before us the information regarding the report of the Investigation Wing and other related documents. 12. On going through the contents of the report