SHRI JAYESH KANTILAL MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

148 of the Act. The reasons recorded were asked and was provided to the assessee. After serving other statutory notices under Section 143(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded for reassessment. ITA 357 & 356/SRT/2017 Sh. Jayesh Kantilal Modi Vs ITO 4. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown turnover of Rs. 7.67 crores

RIZWANAHMED MOHMED USMAIN SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rizwanahmed Mohmed Usmain The Ito, Shaikh Ward-1(2)(6), Vs Hasina, Manjil, Harinagar-1, Surat. Udhna, Surat. Pan: Adaps 5725 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2. The re-opening of case u/s 147 for the asst. year 2009-10 is bad in law because, the same is time barred as notice u/s 148 was issued on 2nd march, 2015 which is beyond the time limit prescribed in view of proviso to section 147, as all the material facts was disclosed during the original assessment

M/S SEVEN EAGLE PRODUCTION,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Seven Eagle Production, The Assistant 5/6, Paras Shopping Centre, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Near.Gajera Circle, Katargam, Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat. Email:Srshethtax@Gmail.Com Surat – 395004. Pan: Abffs 0860 C Applicant Respondent

148, the assessee filed its reply on 28.10.2016 stating therein that the return filed originally on 29.09.2010 be treated return in response to the said notice. The assessing officer after serving statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) and supplying reasons recorded, proceeded for re- assessment. During the assessment the assessee was asked to submits the details

SURESH RAMANBHAI NAIK L/H OF RAMANBHAI PARBHUBHAI DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Suresh Ramanbhai Naik, I.T.O., L/R Of Ramanbhai Parbhubhai Desai, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. 41, Meghna Raw House, Near Surat. Maharaja Agrasen Bhavan, City Light Road, Surat-395003. Pan No. Akqpd 5495 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2 Suresh Ramanbhai Naik Vs ITO a view that the assessee had failed to furnish return of income within due time as prescribed under the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act. A show cause notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271F of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30/09/2018 in fixing hearing on 18/10/2018. The assessing officer

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee vide application filed on 20/05/2022

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee vide application filed on 20/05/2022

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee vide application filed on 20/05/2022

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee vide application filed on 20/05/2022

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

148 was on 27.03.2018. However,\nassessee did not file her return in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the\nAO has issued five notices and show cause notice which are mentioned at\npage-2 of the assessment order. There was no compliance to any of the\nnotices issued by the AO. Hence, AO has completed assessment proceedings\nex parte

SHANKAR ZETHABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit(Central), 505, Sraynik Park Appartment, Rander Surat. Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfepp7235M Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

TDS out of Rs. 70 lacs. The amount actually paid is evident from the bank statement as explained herein above. 3. Your honour has raised another issue that assessee has shown the turnover of Rs.31,35,000/- for the purpose of section 44AD whereas the credit entries appearing in bank accounts is Rs.1,20,44,870/- including cash deposit

SHRI BALAJI J BHAGNURE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Balaji J. Bhagnure Income Tax Officer, 98, Santkrupa Society, In Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Vs Lane Of Mahadev Mandir, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Godadara Devadh Road, Surat-395001 Godadara, Surat-394210 Pan No: Alkpb 8794 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 27.12.2022 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [For Short To As “Nfac/ Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 26.07.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 11.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Reopening Assessment By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The I.T. Act 1961. Sh. Balaji J Bhagnure 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act.

148 of the Act the assessee failed to furnish return of income. The Assessing Officer recorded that several notices were served upon the assessee but the assessee failed to 2 Sh. Balaji J Bhagnure furnish the details of his income. Therefore, in absence of any explanation the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act and treated

HASMUKHBHAI RAVJIBHAI CHAUDHARI,MANDVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BARDOLI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.325/Srt/2022 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Income Tax Officer, Chaudhari, Choramba, At Ward-2, Bardoli-394601 Vs Post Choramba Taluka Mandvi, Surat-394440 Pan No: Amipc 8927 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

TDS) under section 194C was deducted. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer was having belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.14,27,800/-. The Assessing Officer after recording the reasons of re-opening issued notice under section 148 on 23.03.2018. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite service of notice

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 148 with reasons of reopening, (14) Objection against reopening dated 22.11.2018, (15) Reply to show cause notice dated 13.12,2018, (16) Copy of statement dated 05.12.2013 recorded by search team, and letter dated 01.04.2014 written by Rajinder Jain and Surrender jain admitting them as entry provider, (17) Reply before CIT(A) and the decision in case of Anshuman Ramdayalji

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 148 with reasons of reopening, (14) Objection against reopening dated 22.11.2018, (15) Reply to show cause notice dated 13.12,2018, (16) Copy of statement dated 05.12.2013 recorded by search team, and letter dated 01.04.2014 written by Rajinder Jain and Surrender jain admitting them as entry provider, (17) Reply before CIT(A) and the decision in case of Anshuman Ramdayalji

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 148 with reasons of reopening, (14) Objection against reopening dated 22.11.2018, (15) Reply to show cause notice dated 13.12,2018, (16) Copy of statement dated 05.12.2013 recorded by search team, and letter dated 01.04.2014 written by Rajinder Jain and Surrender jain admitting them as entry provider, (17) Reply before CIT(A) and the decision in case of Anshuman Ramdayalji

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

148 of the I.T. Act. I have perused the submission of the AR, Remand Report and considered verbal arguments, it is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that they

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

148 of the I.T. Act. I have perused the submission of the AR, Remand Report and considered verbal arguments, it is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that they

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

148 of the I.T. Act. I have perused the submission of the AR, Remand Report and considered verbal arguments, it is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that they