THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

u/s 148 of the Act dated 30th March 2019. The AO finally framed assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in the hands of assessee vide order dated 23-12-2019 wherein the sum of Rs. 13,85,10,960.00 was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 as valid when reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s ITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024 Arcoy Industries (India

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 as valid when reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s ITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024 Arcoy Industries (India

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 as valid when reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s ITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024 Arcoy Industries (India

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

25,405/-. A notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued on 8th January 2016. The learned Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act on 20th December 2016. He determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.7,62,43,212/-. Dissatisfied with the additions

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

25,405/-. A notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued on 8th January 2016. The learned Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act on 20th December 2016. He determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.7,62,43,212/-. Dissatisfied with the additions

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. in the case of the assessee was merely based on borrowed satisfaction. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Harikishan S. Virmani vs. DCIT, [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. in the case of the assessee was merely based on borrowed satisfaction. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Harikishan S. Virmani vs. DCIT, [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. in the case of the assessee was merely based on borrowed satisfaction. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Harikishan S. Virmani vs. DCIT, [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. in the case of the assessee was merely based on borrowed satisfaction. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Harikishan S. Virmani vs. DCIT, [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. in the case of the assessee was merely based on borrowed satisfaction. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Harikishan S. Virmani vs. DCIT, [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. in the case of the assessee was merely based on borrowed satisfaction. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Harikishan S. Virmani vs. DCIT, [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. in the case of the assessee was merely based on borrowed satisfaction. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Harikishan S. Virmani vs. DCIT, [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel