DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

bogus (para 6.4). 35. Before us, the ld AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that all the invoices were duly recorded in the books, payments were made through account payee cheques, stock was up to date. No documents during the search was found which was unaccounted. Further, search party has not pointed out any deficiency in the books of account

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

bogus (para 6.4). 35. Before us, the ld AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that all the invoices were duly recorded in the books, payments were made through account payee cheques, stock was up to date. No documents during the search was found which was unaccounted. Further, search party has not pointed out any deficiency in the books of account

ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESHKUMAR LALCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.452/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mukeshkumar Lalchand Jain, 2(3)(8), Room No.407, 4Th Prop. Of M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Vs. Office No. 401, Floor, H. Centre, Adajan-Hajira Road, No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Adajan, Surat-395009 Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agupj3281A (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

bogus purchases. However, for remaining purchases/ entries, the Ld. DR submitted that as per section 37(1) of the Act there

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

bogus purchases. 37. In the result, ground no.3 raised by assessee is partly allowed. 38. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to addition to Rs.19,46,000/-, on account of unexplained cash credit under section

GUJARAT POLYSOL CHEMICALS LIMITED LIMITED,VAPI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.513 & 595/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Plot No.1734, 3Rd Phase. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 Vapi, 8Th Floor, Fortune Square- Pan No. Aaacg 8908 Q Ii, Above Tbz, Chala-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent /Ita No.595/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle, I, Plot No.1734, 3Rd Phase, Gidc, Vs Vapi, 9Th Floor, Fortune Vapi-396195 Pan No.Aaacg 8908 Q Square-Ii, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

37,530/- (being ITA Nos. 513 & 595/SRT/2023 (A.Y 18-19) Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd. 7.5% of Rs.36,05,00,394/-) out of total addition of Rs.9,01,25,099/- (25% of Rs.6,05,00,394/-) made by the AO on account of G.P. on bogus purchase without appreciating the fact that GST tax rate on the purchase of raw materials

DCIT, VAPI vs. GUJARART POLYSOL CHEMICAL LTD, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.513 & 595/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Plot No.1734, 3Rd Phase. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 Vapi, 8Th Floor, Fortune Square- Pan No. Aaacg 8908 Q Ii, Above Tbz, Chala-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent /Ita No.595/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle, I, Plot No.1734, 3Rd Phase, Gidc, Vs Vapi, 9Th Floor, Fortune Vapi-396195 Pan No.Aaacg 8908 Q Square-Ii, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

37,530/- (being ITA Nos. 513 & 595/SRT/2023 (A.Y 18-19) Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd. 7.5% of Rs.36,05,00,394/-) out of total addition of Rs.9,01,25,099/- (25% of Rs.6,05,00,394/-) made by the AO on account of G.P. on bogus purchase without appreciating the fact that GST tax rate on the purchase of raw materials

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT vs. M/S. RAJLAXMI INFRA, SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Rajlaxmi Infra Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep Soc, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 Pan No. Aaofr 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

section 143(3) and no 18 Rajlaxmi Infra adverse inference was drawn against such party. The payments to all three parties were made through banking channel. Further against purchase of Rs.50.98 lakhs from such party are not claimed and entire amount was transferred to closing work-in-progress. Thus, there was no basis of treating the purchase made from

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)

37,40,175/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is substantiated by the statement on oath given

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

37,44,213/- on account of bogus purchases. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns was bogus and it was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which has 453/SRT/2019/AY.2013-14 Mahaveer Shantilal Jain been duly substantiated

M/S. SHASHVAT JEWELS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No3364/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S. Shashvat Jewels Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax, 6/1468, Shashvat House, Circle-2(1)(2) Surat Kansara Street, Mahidharpura, Surat 395003 Pan:Aajcs 9790D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

37,52,890 treating as bogus purchases under section 68 of the Act, by relying on third party statement without

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

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

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

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WASRD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

section 144 of the Act. 15. On merits, Ld. DR submitted that assessee has not explained the genuineness of the transactions and therefore it is a case of bogus purchase relating to the various concern of Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain, and assessee was ITA Nos.40 & 41/SRT/2022 Ganesh Ganpat Alim engaged in taking accommodation entries only. Therefore, addition made

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

section 144 of the Act. 15. On merits, Ld. DR submitted that assessee has not explained the genuineness of the transactions and therefore it is a case of bogus purchase relating to the various concern of Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain, and assessee was ITA Nos.40 & 41/SRT/2022 Ganesh Ganpat Alim engaged in taking accommodation entries only. Therefore, addition made

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 purchases have already suffered the taxes by way of additions sustained by the Assessing Officer at the rate of 9.3%, therefore, the 5% addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving notice of enhancement is bad in law and hence entire addition should be deleted in toto. 30. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through

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 purchases have already suffered the taxes by way of additions sustained by the Assessing Officer at the rate of 9.3%, therefore, the 5% addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving notice of enhancement is bad in law and hence entire addition should be deleted in toto. 30. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through