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

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 ITO, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE GOKUL DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven 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 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)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VISHWAS DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven 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 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

THE ITO, WARD-1,, BARDOLI vs. M/S. GIRIRAJ DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven 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)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven 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(1)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VISHWAS HITECH INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven 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. VISHWAS CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven 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-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 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 DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE INFRA, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven 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

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 are not identifiable. Hence, the quantum appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT (A). Therefore, CIT (A) observed that if a person obliged to furnish particulars of his income and omits to furnish them, he thereby conceals the particulars. Accordingly, the CIT (A) viewed that explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, therefore, I dismiss ground No.3 raised by the assessee in quantum appeal. 7. Succinct facts qua ground No.2 of the assessee`s appeal, are that assessee before me is an Individual. The assessee has not filed her Return of income for the assessment year 2009-10. In assessee`s case information