KETAN N. SHAH (HUF) ,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.321/Srt/2018,िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Virtual Court) Ketan N. Shah (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.275, Usha Hospital & Life Ward -5, Vapi. Science Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [Pan: Aahhk 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hardikvora– Ar िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 [“Cit(A)” ], Valsad, State Of Gujarat,Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.This Appeal Was Initially Adjudicated Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. However, The Order Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 02.01.2020 In Ma No.59/Srt/2019, Thus, In The Aforesaid Background, The Appeal Was Heard Afresh.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gain account with Bank of Baroda and remaining Rs.35 lakhs was invested in purchase of residential property with M/s. Samanvay 2 Ketan N. Shah (HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.321/SRT/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 Park (builder), on which the assessee claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. 3. The AO in order to ascertain the claim of assessee under section

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)

capital gain was wrongly claimed. 6.1 On the facts of case, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises. 7. Resultantly, appeal is dismissed”. 29. We note that findings of the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai(supra) is squarely applicable to the assessee`s facts under consideration

SHRI VIRENDRA NATWARLAL JARIWALA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Virendra Natwarlal Jariwala The Dy. Commissioner Of D-10/11, Aenav Complex-C, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Vs City Light Road, Surat. Surat-495003. Pan : Aachj7085E Applicant Respondent Shri Sudhir Natwarlal Jariwala Ito, Ward-3(1)(5), (Huf), 6/2578, Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Rampura, Surat-495003. Majuragate, Surat. Pan : Aaehs3103G Applicant Respondent

gains being offered for tax. It is therefore an empowering provision wherein the Assessing officer has been given requisite power and authority w.e.f 1.07.2012 to refer the matter relating to valuation of a capital asset to the valuation officer. The question however remains in respect of which all transactions, the Assessing officer is empowered to make a reference

SMT.KAUSHIKABEN NIMESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.06/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Kaushikaben Nimeshbhai Patel, Vs The Income Tax Officer, A/42, Padariya Mohallo, Adajan . Ward-1(3)(7), Surat. Gam, Surat. [Pan: Biypp 0688 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

gains being offered for tax. It is therefore an empowering provision wherein the Assessing officer has been given requisite power and authority w.e.f 1.07.2012 to refer the matter relating to valuation of a capital asset to the valuation officer. The question however remains in respect of which all transactions, the Assessing officer is empowered to make a reference

RAJENDRAPRASAD BABULAL KHETAN,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Gain added by the AO, confirmed by ld.CIT(A) is deleted. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 28. From the above judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Late Shri Mohanlal Ambelal Desai (supra), it is vivid that being co-owner, the assessee is also entitled for similar treatment. The ITA.142/SRT/2023

KIRANKUMAR RAMANLAL NAIK,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 415, Dabhi Street, Near Zanda Chowk, Ward-2(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395006. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akcpn2062P िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rushin Patel, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2023

gains being offered for tax. It is therefore an empowering provision wherein the Assessing officer has been given requisite power and authority w.e.f 1-7-2012 to refer the matter relating to valuation of a capital asset to the valuation officer. The question however remains in respect of which all transactions, the Assessing officer is empowered to make a reference

MUKESHBHAI RAMUBHAI AHIR,,SURAT vs. ITO,WARD-1(3) (3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mukeshbhai Ramubhai Ahir Ito, Ward-1(3)(3), 49,-B, Ambanagar, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs B/H Kapadia Health Club, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Bhatar, Surat-395002. Gate, Surat. Pan : Aqqpa1546H Applicant Respondent

gains being offered for tax. It is therefore an empowering provision wherein the Assessing officer has been given requisite power and authority w.e.f 1.07.2012 to refer the matter relating to valuation of a capital asset to the valuation officer. The question however remains in respect of which all transactions, the Assessing officer is empowered to make a reference

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain of Rs. 70,02,867/- was added back to the total income of the assessee during the year and long term capital loss claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs.2,68,80,493/- was disallowed by the assessing officer. 16. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

THE WAGRA TALUKA CO. OPERATIVE MARKETING & PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD.,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) The Wagra Taluka Co-Operative I.T.O. Marketing & Processing Society Ward 1(5), Vs. Limited, Bharuch. At & Post:Wagra, Taluka- Wagra, District - Bharuch (Gujarat). M. No. 8128950676 E.Mail: Mrmconsultants@Yahoo.Com Pan: Aaaat 2404 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

capital gain, worked out in rectification order dated 27/2/2019, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submission of assessee is recorded in para 4 of order of ld. CIT(A). In the written submission, the assessee challenged the validity of reference under Section 142A

ACIT, CC-3, SURAT vs. SHRI NARESH NEMCHAND SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Cir.-3, Vs. Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat. Abhishek House, Bh. Jeevan Bharti School, Kadampali Society, Nanpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrps 0182 J (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

section 10(38) in respect of capital gain arising from sale of shares - Assessing Officer took a view that share transactions were bogus because company 'C' whose shares were allegedly purchased, was a penny stock - He thus rejected assessee's claim - Tribunal upheld order passed by Assessing Officer - High court also took a view that finding arrived by Tribunal

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

133(6) was issued to the assessee asking him to furnish the\ndetails of capital gain for the share transaction. However, no reply has been furnished by the\nassessee. On verification of the computation of income, it is seen that the assessee has not declared\nany capital gain and also noticed that claimed exemption

NAVINCHANDRA K. PATEL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 , SURAT, 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.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

Capital Gain and deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act. 11. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessee under consideration, has sold his agricultural land after converting the land into non-agriculture land. Prior to sale of such land

KANTILAL NAGINDAS KAPADIA-HUF L/H. NAINESH PRAVINCHANDRA GANDHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), SURAT

Capital Gains for taxation comes to nil. 3. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was of the view that value of land adopted by assessee @ Rs.1500/- per square meter as on 01.04.1981 seems to be on a higher side. The assessing officer made a reference under section 55A to Departmental Valuation Officer

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

capital gain. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim ignoring the judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell Vs. CTO wherein it was held that “Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage

ITO, WARD-1(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI KRUNAL CHANDRAKANT PARMAR, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) I.T.O. Shri Krunal Chandrakant Parmar, Ward-1(3)(7), 152, Dipmala Near Kesarba School, Vs. Surat. B/H Ram Nagar, Rander Road, Palanpur Patiya, Surat. Pan : Aoopp 9749 R Appellant Respondednt

Section 148, the assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 26/11/2018 declaring income of 10,04,209/-. In the return of income, the assessee was shown income from business of Rs. 7,65,046/- and capital gains of Rs. 2,39,163/-. Reasons recorded were provided to the assessee. The Assessing officer after serving statutory notices

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT vs. SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA DAHYABHAI UMRIGER, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.134 To 137/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat. Bungalow No.01, Opp. Talao Street, Near Govindji Park, Umra, Surat-395007(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpu5216D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat. 504, D/1, Subham Residency, Pal, Surat- 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpm0852D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat. 1/3210-11, New Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpu9028R The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Narar-3, Opp. Brc Gate, Udhna, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

gain. In support of all these contentions, the ld Counsel cited several case laws of Higher Judicial Authorities in which it has been held that additions on the basis of documents found at third party premises cannot be sustained only on the basis of ITA.134 to 137/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Prabodhchandra Jayatilal Patel & Ors. surmises and conjectures. The assessee further contended that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-2, SURAT vs. SHRI SHANKAR MULCHAND UTTAMANI, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.134 To 137/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat. Bungalow No.01, Opp. Talao Street, Near Govindji Park, Umra, Surat-395007(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpu5216D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat. 504, D/1, Subham Residency, Pal, Surat- 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpm0852D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat. 1/3210-11, New Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpu9028R The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Narar-3, Opp. Brc Gate, Udhna, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

gain. In support of all these contentions, the ld Counsel cited several case laws of Higher Judicial Authorities in which it has been held that additions on the basis of documents found at third party premises cannot be sustained only on the basis of ITA.134 to 137/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Prabodhchandra Jayatilal Patel & Ors. surmises and conjectures. The assessee further contended that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-2, SURAT vs. SHRI VASANTRAI AMBARAM MODI, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.134 To 137/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat. Bungalow No.01, Opp. Talao Street, Near Govindji Park, Umra, Surat-395007(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpu5216D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat. 504, D/1, Subham Residency, Pal, Surat- 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpm0852D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat. 1/3210-11, New Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpu9028R The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Narar-3, Opp. Brc Gate, Udhna, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

gain. In support of all these contentions, the ld Counsel cited several case laws of Higher Judicial Authorities in which it has been held that additions on the basis of documents found at third party premises cannot be sustained only on the basis of ITA.134 to 137/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Prabodhchandra Jayatilal Patel & Ors. surmises and conjectures. The assessee further contended that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-2, SURAT vs. SHRI PRABODHCHABNDRA JAYANTILAL PATEL, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.134 To 137/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat. Bungalow No.01, Opp. Talao Street, Near Govindji Park, Umra, Surat-395007(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpu5216D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat. 504, D/1, Subham Residency, Pal, Surat- 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpm0852D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat. 1/3210-11, New Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpu9028R The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Narar-3, Opp. Brc Gate, Udhna, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

gain. In support of all these contentions, the ld Counsel cited several case laws of Higher Judicial Authorities in which it has been held that additions on the basis of documents found at third party premises cannot be sustained only on the basis of ITA.134 to 137/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Prabodhchandra Jayatilal Patel & Ors. surmises and conjectures. The assessee further contended that