ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH BABULAL PARLECHA, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.225 & 226/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Surat. Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Surat. 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) & Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25/07/2022

164 7,17,704 Net profit 5,75,839 7,34,387 ROI (NP / Average Capital) (%) 117.96% 102.32% b. The purchases have entered the stock register and if the impugned purchases are excluded then the closing stock results into negative balance which is not possible. c. It is pertinent to mention that the purchase invoices are paid by account payee

ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH BABULAL PARLECHA, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.225 & 226/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Surat. Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Surat. 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) & Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25/07/2022

164 7,17,704 Net profit 5,75,839 7,34,387 ROI (NP / Average Capital) (%) 117.96% 102.32% b. The purchases have entered the stock register and if the impugned purchases are excluded then the closing stock results into negative balance which is not possible. c. It is pertinent to mention that the purchase invoices are paid by account payee

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

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

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

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

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

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

SHRI NILESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI BODARA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3),, SURAT

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2776/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13

bogus purchases has to be made based on gross profit rate of 1 to 5% of total alleged disputed purchases. We find that the assessee had maintained the quantity stock of diamonds purchases and sold, which has not been disputed by the AO, thus the entire amount of purchases cannot be added to the total income. In our humble understanding

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

bogus purchase and sales transaction. The assessee has not declared sales and purchase transactions correctly in the return of income and that not comply with show cause notice under section 148A(b). As notice under section 148A(b) was not complied. The case of assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

purchases are made from rag pickers in cash on daily basis, I am inclined to agree with the AO's view that there could not be any case of sundry creditors in such business. Further, even the assessee accepts that the rag pickers are not identifiable nor they can be produced for verification and in such a situation

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

purchases are made from rag pickers in cash on daily basis, I am inclined to agree with the AO's view that there could not be any case of sundry creditors in such business. Further, even the assessee accepts that the rag pickers are not identifiable nor they can be produced for verification and in such a situation

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

purchase, etc., for verification in spite of being provided with ample time to reconcile - Whether, on facts, assessee had failed to discharge onus cast on him to substantiate his claim and, therefore, impugned addition made by authorities below was to be upheld - Held, yes". This case is Affirmed in [2019] 101 taxmann.com 164 (Karnataka). 5. Considering the facts

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. TRANSIT GEO SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3330/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1)(1), M/S Transit Geo Systems Integrator Pvt. Ltd., 13-C-404, 1St Floor, Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Parshvanath Complex, Above Bhakti Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Automobiles, Udhna, Magdalla Road, Surat-395017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadct 4158 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchased the shares at premium by passing various adjustment entries against the amount lying as sundry creditors in their name. It has further submitted that assessee-company has allotted job ITA No.3330/AHD/2016 A.Y. 12-13 M/s Transit Geo Suystems Integrators Pvt. Ltd. work to various parties during the year and amount was shown was payable to the said parties. Thus

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)

bogus. We note that assessment has been made u/s 153C of the Act, as the search was conducted on 04.09.2015, in the case M/s Param Properties and during the course of search, some documents belonging to the assessee were found pertaining to few assessment years. However, for the assessment year under consideration, there is no mention of any incriminating document

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)

bogus. We note that assessment has been made u/s 153C of the Act, as the search was conducted on 04.09.2015, in the case M/s Param Properties and during the course of search, some documents belonging to the assessee were found pertaining to few assessment years. However, for the assessment year under consideration, there is no mention of any incriminating document