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.

271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowance of bogus/ unverified purchases 7.2.1 (a) On perusal

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.

271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowance of bogus/ unverified purchases 7.2.1 (a) On perusal

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.

271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowance of bogus/ unverified purchases 7.2.1 (a) On perusal

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)

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6.Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty on estimated addition and confirmed the penalty in respect of sundry creditors, observing as follows: “On merits of penalty levied by the AO, I find that the penalty u/s 271

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)

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6.Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty on estimated addition and confirmed the penalty in respect of sundry creditors, observing as follows: “On merits of penalty levied by the AO, I find that the penalty u/s 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

bogus purchases cannot be disallowed and only the gross profit on the alleged purchases to be disallowed." "After taking into consideration the various decisions of the Tribunal that no penalty under section 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

bogus purchases cannot be disallowed and only the gross profit on the alleged purchases to be disallowed." "After taking into consideration the various decisions of the Tribunal that no penalty under section 271

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. 4. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and the AO held that the assessee

M/S. YAELSTAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

bogus purchases of Rs.15,74,67,842/- and made addition of Rs.3,93,66,960/- on which penalty were also initiated under section 271

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

In the result the ground No

bogus purchases to reduce his taxable income. Hence I am satisfied that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and is liable penalty u/s 271(l)(c)ofthe Act. The penalty proceedings are hereby initiated by issue of Show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c)of the Act.” 11.Aggrieved by the order

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. ANUPAM INFRASTRUCTURE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

purchaser. Therefore, assessee did not discharge its initial onus as the explanation of ‘on-money’ was faulted by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in relying on the judgments to the effect that penalty can not be imposed merely because of change

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT vs. SAI VIHAR CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

purchaser. Therefore, assessee did not discharge its initial onus as the explanation of ‘on-money’ was faulted by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in relying on the judgments to the effect that penalty can not be imposed merely because of change

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA ECO HOMES,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

purchaser. Therefore, assessee did not discharge its initial onus as the explanation of ‘on-money’ was faulted by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in relying on the judgments to the effect that penalty can not be imposed merely because of change

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

purchaser. Therefore, assessee did not discharge its initial onus as the explanation of ‘on-money’ was faulted by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in relying on the judgments to the effect that penalty can not be imposed merely because of change

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. PNG DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

purchaser. Therefore, assessee did not discharge its initial onus as the explanation of ‘on-money’ was faulted by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in relying on the judgments to the effect that penalty can not be imposed merely because of change

THE ITO, WARD-1,, BARDOLI vs. M/S. AISHWARYA CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

purchaser. Therefore, assessee did not discharge its initial onus as the explanation of ‘on-money’ was faulted by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in relying on the judgments to the effect that penalty can not be imposed merely because of change

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

purchaser. Therefore, assessee did not discharge its initial onus as the explanation of ‘on-money’ was faulted by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in relying on the judgments to the effect that penalty can not be imposed merely because of change

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

purchaser. Therefore, assessee did not discharge its initial onus as the explanation of ‘on-money’ was faulted by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in relying on the judgments to the effect that penalty can not be imposed merely because of change