RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

deposited in the bank accounts in the period of demonetization remained unexplained treated as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) Ground No.2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

deposited in the bank accounts in the period of demonetization remained unexplained treated as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) Ground No.2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

deposited in the bank accounts in the period of demonetization remained unexplained treated as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) Ground No.2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRA CIR.2, SURAT vs. DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

cash deposit to the extent of Rs.35,33,091/- as discussed in para 6 of the appeal order. (ii) Ground No.2: CIT(A) erred in assuming addition on account of excess stock found during the survey proceedings to the extent of Rs.4,67,19,066/- as discussed in para 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the appeal order.” 38. Ground no.1: During

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. M/S. DAGINA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., , SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

cash deposit to the extent of Rs.35,33,091/- as discussed in para 6 of the appeal order. (ii) Ground No.2: CIT(A) erred in assuming addition on account of excess stock found during the survey proceedings to the extent of Rs.4,67,19,066/- as discussed in para 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the appeal order.” 38. Ground no.1: During

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

cash deposit to the extent of Rs.35,33,091/- as discussed in para 6 of the appeal order. (ii) Ground No.2: CIT(A) erred in assuming addition on account of excess stock found during the survey proceedings to the extent of Rs.4,67,19,066/- as discussed in para 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the appeal order.” 38. Ground no.1: During

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

cash deposit to the extent of Rs.35,33,091/- as discussed in para 6 of the appeal order. (ii) Ground No.2: CIT(A) erred in assuming addition on account of excess stock found during the survey proceedings to the extent of Rs.4,67,19,066/- as discussed in para 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the appeal order.” 38. Ground no.1: During

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

cash deposit to the extent of Rs.35,33,091/- as discussed in para 6 of the appeal order. (ii) Ground No.2: CIT(A) erred in assuming addition on account of excess stock found during the survey proceedings to the extent of Rs.4,67,19,066/- as discussed in para 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the appeal order.” 38. Ground no.1: During

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

cash deposit to the extent of Rs.35,33,091/- as discussed in para 6 of the appeal order. (ii) Ground No.2: CIT(A) erred in assuming addition on account of excess stock found during the survey proceedings to the extent of Rs.4,67,19,066/- as discussed in para 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the appeal order.” 38. Ground no.1: During

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

cash deposit to the extent of Rs.35,33,091/- as discussed in para 6 of the appeal order. (ii) Ground No.2: CIT(A) erred in assuming addition on account of excess stock found during the survey proceedings to the extent of Rs.4,67,19,066/- as discussed in para 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the appeal order.” 38. Ground no.1: During

MURTUJA HUSAINBHAI HIRANI,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, , NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Murtuja Hussainbhai Hirani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, Prop. Of R. K. Bullion, Navsari Shop No.5, Pranav Chamber Madhumati, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aciph3680D Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 09/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

bogus. 14. The Ld. Counsel further stated that assessee made an agreement for cash purchases of the gold from various customers, since the assessee is trading in gold, therefore he made cash purchases only up to 4% of the total purchases. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer issued show cause notice, however the assessee could not submit the entire details

JIGNESH RAJKUMAR MEHTA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Jignesh Rajkumar Mehta, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), 48, Sankalp Society, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Bhatar, Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm2561Q Assessee By Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

cash deposit in demonetization period. The ld Counsel argued before us that turnover, gross profit (GP), net profit (NP) and taxable income of the assessee remain same and there is no bogus sales and moreover the Assessing Officer has not rejected books of accounts, hence addition should not be made. However, we note that assessee has not submitted complete stock

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.

purchase and sale and unsecured loans to various parties / beneficiaries. The name-sake Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat /dummy Directors/ proprietors / partner of all these concerns admitted on oath that they were merely employees of Gautam Jain and others and were looking after miscellaneous office work like depositing cheques in banks, handling over parcels to clients

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.

purchase and sale and unsecured loans to various parties / beneficiaries. The name-sake Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat /dummy Directors/ proprietors / partner of all these concerns admitted on oath that they were merely employees of Gautam Jain and others and were looking after miscellaneous office work like depositing cheques in banks, handling over parcels to clients

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.

purchase and sale and unsecured loans to various parties / beneficiaries. The name-sake Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat /dummy Directors/ proprietors / partner of all these concerns admitted on oath that they were merely employees of Gautam Jain and others and were looking after miscellaneous office work like depositing cheques in banks, handling over parcels to clients

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.

purchase and sale and unsecured loans to various parties / beneficiaries. The name-sake Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat /dummy Directors/ proprietors / partner of all these concerns admitted on oath that they were merely employees of Gautam Jain and others and were looking after miscellaneous office work like depositing cheques in banks, handling over parcels to clients

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.

purchase and sale and unsecured loans to various parties / beneficiaries. The name-sake Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat /dummy Directors/ proprietors / partner of all these concerns admitted on oath that they were merely employees of Gautam Jain and others and were looking after miscellaneous office work like depositing cheques in banks, handling over parcels to clients

DEVNGI JEWELLWERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Devngi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 109 -110, Shreyas Diamond Centre, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd3227A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

deposits were made in accounts of unrelated parties, which were later on transferred to the assessee. In the present case, there is no intermediary or accommodation entry involved whereas in case of Choksi (supra) there were alleged structured transactions using third party entities. In case of the appellant, there are supporting evidence in the form of cash sales register, purchase