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.

bogus purchases" does not arise especially when the assessee has 'neither shown sales in P & L A/c nor claimed such purchases as expenditure. Once it is established that the appellant has not claimed any deduction

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.

bogus purchases" does not arise especially when the assessee has 'neither shown sales in P & L A/c nor claimed such purchases as expenditure. Once it is established that the appellant has not claimed any deduction

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.

bogus purchases" does not arise especially when the assessee has 'neither shown sales in P & L A/c nor claimed such purchases as expenditure. Once it is established that the appellant has not claimed any deduction

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.

bogus purchases" does not arise especially when the assessee has 'neither shown sales in P & L A/c nor claimed such purchases as expenditure. Once it is established that the appellant has not claimed any deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL PUKHRAJ JAIN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

bogus purchases, is a fresh issue, and such fresh information was not there with the assessing officer at the time of making original assessment for A.Y. 2008-09, under section 143(3) of the Act dated 24.10.2010, hence the AO was right in reopening the assessment. 19. The ld DR also stated that there is no bar to record

ABHISHEK NAVNITKUMAR DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD. 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 21/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Vs. Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2022 09/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

bogus purchases and freight payments made in relation thereto should have been disallowed or the assessee should have been held to be eligible for grant of deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(6), SURAT vs. SHRI ABHISHEK NAVNITKUMAR DOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 21/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Vs. Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2022 09/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

bogus purchases and freight payments made in relation thereto should have been disallowed or the assessee should have been held to be eligible for grant of deduction

LATE SHRI BHIMSEN DARBARILAL ARORA,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

deducted from the total disallowance of unverifiable purchases. ITA 1706/AHD/2016/AY.2010-11 (Late) Shri Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Sr. Name of the Party Amount of purchases No. involved 1. Shree Enterprise Rs. 1,91,115/- 2. Vee Gee Textiles Rs. 3,14,015/- 3. Shree Sankheswer Syndicate Rs. 3,81,240/- 4. Jay Veer Textiles Rs. 3,84,948/- 5. Pramukh Enterprise

LEXUS SOFTMAC,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

deducting his commission @0.5%. ITA Nos.702 & 703/SRT/2024/AYs 14-15 & 2015-16 Lexus Softmac 6. As per the information received, it was seen that the following entities of Kamal J. Zaveri group had provided accommodation entries of bogus purchases

LEXUS SOFTMAC,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

deducting his commission @0.5%. ITA Nos.702 & 703/SRT/2024/AYs 14-15 & 2015-16 Lexus Softmac 6. As per the information received, it was seen that the following entities of Kamal J. Zaveri group had provided accommodation entries of bogus purchases

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus transactions and, therefore, the assessee's claim of purchases to the extent of Rs. 192,19,31,021/- cannot be allowed as deduction

SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus transactions and, therefore, the assessee's claim of purchases to the extent of Rs. 192,19,31,021/- cannot be allowed as deduction

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus transactions and, therefore, the assessee's claim of purchases to the extent of Rs. 192,19,31,021/- cannot be allowed as deduction

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

bogus billing, the ITC was reversed and assessee paid the GST with interest and penalty. However, so far as the purchases are concerned the assessee is eligible for deduction

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

bogus purchases. 8. It would be useful to refer to law laid down by various High Courts and Tribunals on issue of levy of penalty in case of adhoc additions/ disallowances before we decide the issue before us. 9. Their Lordships of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Gopal Vs. CIT [258 ITR 85 (P&H) held as under

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

bogus by the Assessing Officer, therefore Assessing Officer should not have made addition under section 68 of the Act in respect of creditors under the head cash credit. Therefore, addition made by Assessing Officer is on wrong footing. 10. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that it is not a typographical error in the assessment order that section 68 has been

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

bogus liability in the form of creditors and given treatment of unexplained cash credits as per Section 68. On careful consideration of facts and circumstances, I find that the action of the Ld. AO lacks legal reasoning and accounting logic. On one hand, the Ld. AO allows the purchases of Rs.2,45,16,421/- made by the assessee from

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

bogus liability in the form of creditors and given treatment of unexplained cash credits as per Section 68. On careful consideration of facts and circumstances, I find that the action of the Ld. AO lacks legal reasoning and accounting logic. On one hand, the Ld. AO allows the purchases of Rs.2,45,16,421/- made by the assessee from