DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

reassessment 90,37,67,440/ under due to failure - under Section of the section 68 as 147 read assessee to unexplained with provide credits due to Section adequate non- 144B evidence or compliance substantiate and lack of the substantiatio transactions n of the during the transactions. proceedings. ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

reassessment 90,37,67,440/ under due to failure - under Section of the section 68 as 147 read assessee to unexplained with provide credits due to Section adequate non- 144B evidence or compliance substantiate and lack of the substantiatio transactions n of the during the transactions. proceedings. ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years

DHARMESSH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-20 Dharmessh Shah The Ito, Ward-1 A-301, Vasantkunj Vs Patan. Garden Residency Sanjivan Road Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aelps 5203 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Kunal T. Sanghavi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prathvij Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

155 taxmann.com 279, wherein the Court held that if sales are not doubted, disallowance of entire purchases is unjustified. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment by relying upon Explanation 1(i) to Section

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)

155 Taxman 270 (Mum); * Madhav Corpn. vs ACIT– (2017) 85 taxmann.com 238 (Ahd); * DCIT v Kankakia Hospitality P Ltd. – (2019) 179 ITD 1 (Mum); 7.4. In view of the above, Ld Senior Counsel submitted that Ld CIT(A) has taken utmost care while determining the income based on seized material. Consequently, balance additions have been rightly deleted. Hence, revenue

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of above directions

reassessment initiated under section 147 of the\nAct. After setting out the statutory framework governing reopening of\nassessments and analysing a series of judicial pronouncements, the learned\nCIT(A) recorded a categorical finding that the reopening was valid. It was\nheld that the information received from the GST anti-evasion wing\nregarding the assessee's transactions with Mahadev Trading

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

section 147 was bad in law and without jurisdiction. The reopening was solely based on third-party information received from the GST Department without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The material was not confronted to the assessee prior to initiation of reassessment. In fact, as per the facts and circumstances, there was no independent inquiry or tangible

LALITABEN DIPAKBHAI MODH,SURAT vs. PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

155 wherein it was held as follows: “Section 263, read with sections 147 and 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 1993-94-Assessee did not file its return. Later on it was discovered that assessee had made certain undisclosed investments in FDRS In compliance of notice under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

155 taxmann.com 135. Thus Ld. Senior Counsel pleaded that the entire reassessment itself are liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR Shri Rignesh Das appearing for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities but not placed any contra judgments on the validity of reopening of assessment. 8. Heard rival submissions and perused the materials

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

155 taxmann.com 135. Thus Ld. Senior Counsel pleaded that the entire reassessment itself are liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR Shri Rignesh Das appearing for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities but not placed any contra judgments on the validity of reopening of assessment. 8. Heard rival submissions and perused the materials