DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

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

139(1) as return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s,148 of the Act and enclosed copy of acknowledgment of the original return of income, which was filed on 15.10.2010. The assessee has also requested to provide copy of reasons recorded to, initiate proceedings under section 147 the Act and the same has been provided

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

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

139(1) as return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s,148 of the Act and enclosed copy of acknowledgment of the original return of income, which was filed on 15.10.2010. The assessee has also requested to provide copy of reasons recorded to, initiate proceedings under section 147 the Act and the same has been provided

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

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest

BALMUKUND M VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus purchases, should also be deleted. 15. We note that assessee has raised additional ground of appeal on jurisdictional issue, which is reproduced below for ready reference: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

bogus purchases, observing as follows: “10.1.7 It is further seen that the Honorable Gujarat High Court in the cases decided subsequent to N K Proteins ltd (supra) has not followed it, viz in the cases of Jagdish H. Patel, TA No.411 of 2017 dtd 01/08/2017 (8% disallowance) and TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA, Surat in TA No. 691/2017 dated 18.09.2017 (0% disallowance

VIVEK KHABIA,SURAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1072/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Vivek Khabia Income Tax Officer, Ward- H.No.1187-90-91, 1089, Office 2(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम No.411, New Dtc Gheekanta Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Vs Road, Nr. Bhavani Vad Temple, Haripura, Surat-395 003 [Pan : Avspk 5724 E] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

5. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the validity of show cause notice under section 148A(b) and validity of notice under section 148 of the Act by taking view that AO was having information that assessee entered into bogus purchase and sales transaction. The assessee has not declared sales and purchase transactions correctly

VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.,-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT vs. VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S. HARSHIT GEMS LTD., , SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus purchases, facts in all appeals are almost common, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals and Cos were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that he has instructed by assessee not to press both cross

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S. HARSHIT GEMS LTD., , SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus purchases, facts in all appeals are almost common, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals and Cos were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that he has instructed by assessee not to press both cross

HARSHIT GEMS LTD,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus purchases, facts in all appeals are almost common, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals and Cos were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that he has instructed by assessee not to press both cross

HARSHIT GEMS LTD,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus purchases, facts in all appeals are almost common, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals and Cos were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that he has instructed by assessee not to press both cross

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submitted that such huge delay should not be condoned merely because there was a mistake on the part of the Tax Consultant of the assessee. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that main reason of delay in filing

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

section 69C of the Act; hence, SLP was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which has dismissed the appeal of Department against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1994-1990 and 2095/Ahd/2010. The CIT(A) also observed that no evidence has been brought on record regarding unaccounted payment. He held that

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

section 69C of the Act; hence, SLP was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which has dismissed the appeal of Department against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1994-1990 and 2095/Ahd/2010. The CIT(A) also observed that no evidence has been brought on record regarding unaccounted payment. He held that

JAYVADAN AMRATLAL RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jayvadan Amratlal Rughnathwala, Vs. The Pcit - 1, 6/7, Khatodara Ind Service Society, Surat B/H Sub Jail Khatodara, Surat – 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpr4348L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad [in short, ‘ld. PCIT’], dated 22.01.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE vs. SHRI GOPALBHAI T PATEL(HUF), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.498/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward Shri Gopalbhai T Patel (Huf) No.2(2)(5) Surat, 2, Vaibhav Bungalow, Vs Room No. 613, Near Radiant High School, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat Gymkhana Road, Surat- Majura Gate, 395007 Surat-395001 Pan Aachg 7284 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

bogus LTCG for facilitating unaccounted income was wrong. 6. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee recorded that addition is made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained income. Thus, it was necessary to adjudicate the nature and source of sums credited in the assessee’s book. The NFAC/Ld. 5 Sh. Gopalbhai T Patel

DESIGNER EXIM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) M/S Designer Exim Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., D-1203, Panchsheel Heights, Opp.- Ward 1(1)(2), Vs. Pizza Hut, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali Surat. West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400067 Pan No. Aabcd 4298 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

purchases made by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 907039/- from M/s Sonali Enterprises is bogus and non- M/s Designer Exim P Ld. Vs ITO genuine. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient to support such conclusion. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals