SUNILKUMAR ICHHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

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

demonetization period treated as alleged unexplained money\nu/s.69A of the Income tax Act, 1961.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the\nsubject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making\naddition of Rs.2,66,676/- on account of credit made during

PARESHBHAI KHODABHAI GODHANI,SURAT vs. NFAC, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Pareshbhai Khodabhai Godhani, I.T.O., 121, 122, Ishwarkrupa Society, B/H. Ward 2(3)(3), Vs. Laxman Nagar Society, Laxman Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Punagam Road, Punagam, Surat. Surat-394210 (Gujarat) Pan No. Anepg 8437 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

delay is not condoned in his case and the appeal is not adjudicated on merit. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization

LABHUBEN MANUBHAI MANGUKIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.773/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Labhuben Manubhai Mangukiya. Vs. The Ito, 24, Ramkrishna Society, L.H. Road, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat - 395006 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aczpm1695G (Appellant) (Respondent)

demonetization period on 06.12.2016. However, it is found that the submission of the assessee dated 09.02.2021 to the CIT(A) has not been considered by him while deciding the appeal. In the said submission, apart from prayer for condonation of delay

RAZAK ABDULKARIM MANSURI,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha&Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

delay is as explained in the condonation-application/affidavit. Ld. AR further submitted that the AO has made addition in respect of cash deposits in bank a/c during demonetization

NARESHBHAI VIJAYBHAI GAMIT,TAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Nareshbhai Vijaybhai Gamit, I.T.O., Shop No. 37, Riddhi Siddhi Palace, Ward-1, Vs. Old Bus Stand, Vyara, Bardoli. District- Tapi-394650. Pan No. Bqbpg 4350 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30/09/2017 declaring income of Rs. 3,04,147/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. In para three (3) of assessment order, the Assessing

AMITKUMAR SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Amit Kumar Shah, I.T.O., 63, Ram Nagar Society, Bhestan, Ward 2(3)(1), बनाम Surat-395023 (Gujarat) Surat Vs Pan : Clkps 7848 P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

condoning delay of 183 days in filing appeal, thereby confirmed the action of Assessing Office (A) in making addition aggregating of Rs.38.58 lacs on account of cash deposit during demonetization

DINESHKUMAR NANUBHAI VIRVAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha&Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condonation of delay. Ld. AR of the assesse submitted the appellant is an individual. He has not filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18. In this case, information was available that the appellant had deposited cash and other ~ 2 ~ ITA- 101/SRT/2025 DineshKumar Nanubhai Virval credits amounting to Rs. 11,05,86,604/- during demonetization

JASHUBHAI MANJIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Bijayananda Pruseth & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jashubhai Manjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 84, Sainath Society, At-Maandavi Ward - 1, Ta-Mandavi, Surat-394160 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amppp2266C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dalzin Madan, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025

condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by the assessee to the credit of ‘Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Surat’ within two weeks from the receipt of this order. 6. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income on 27.03.2018 for AY.2017-18, declaring total income

SHRI MAJID AJIT SHAIKH,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA

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

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

delay of 42 days in filing of appeal is condoned. Now adverting the merit of the case. 5. I have heard the rival submissions of the parties on the main grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The Ld. AR 4 Sh. Majid Ajit Shaikh for the assessee submits that assessee engaged in scrap business in his proprietary concern

RAMESHBHAI POPATBHAI DAKHRA LEGAL HEIR OF POPATBHAI VIRABHAI DAKHRA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.170/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Physical Hearing) Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(3), बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Popatbhai Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395 Vs. Virabhai Dakhra 001 Plot No.17,Ganesh Row House, Nr. Shyamdham Temple, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Surat- 395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aknpd 3920 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

condonation of delay is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing. However, to prevent such laxity in future, we direct the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- in the “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and submit the receipt of payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to the AO. 4. Brief

DEVENDRA JAGJIVAN PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Devendra Jagjivan Patel, Ito-3(2)(2), 30, Tribhovan Nagar Soc, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Akhahand College, Ved Road, Vs. Ward 3(2)(1), Surat-395004. Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001. Pan No. Ahnpp 6293 J Appellant Respondent

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 4.1 On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee did not comply before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has mentioned notice issue on five occasions all such notices were not complied on the part of the assessee, therefore

SHASHIKANT KALYANBHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shashikant Kalyanbhai Patel, I.T.O., 659, Sapoliya Street, Ramshila Ward 1(5), Vs. Chowk, Shuklatirth, Bharuch. Bharuch-392030. Pan No. Adlpp 4184 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

demonetization period (09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016) and thereby raised high pitch demand of Rs. 16,00,313/- without considering the documents and/or supporting evidences already available on record. 2. Both the lower authorities have erred both in law and on the facts in making/confirming the addition of Rs. 15,46,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account

ANIL SINGH HARIPRASAD SINGH RAJPUT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 859/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Anil Singh Hariprasad Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward- Rajput,135-135, Viththal Nagar 3(2)(1), Surat, Room No.416, बनाम Society, Bapasitram Chowk, Dabholi 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Road, Surat-395 004 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Amnpr 5655 F] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

condonation of delay. In fact, the assessment was completed under section 144. The consultant of the assessee has mentioned his mobile and e-mail on ITBA 3 Anil Singh H. Rajput portal, if any, send on such e-mail and mobile of Shri Akshay Ashwinkumar Sumwalawho was not intimated assessee. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee

NILESHKUMAR CHHAGANBHAI VASOYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(8), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vs. The Ito, Vasoya, Ward -3(2)(8), 186, Suvidha Row House, Near Surat. Yogi Chowk, Puna Simada Road, Surat – 395010. Pan : Amfpv9665F Appellant Respondednt

delay of two hundred forty-four (244) days in filing the appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 8. I find case of assessee was selected for scrutiny for cash deposit during demonetization

KIRITKUMAR MANSUKHBHAI JOSHI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1087/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Mansukhbhai Joshi, Vs. The Ito, B-21, Sanjivani Khand Udhyog Ward – 2, Housing Society, Nr.Sajivani Hospital, Bardoli N.H. No.8, Chalthan, Palsana, Surat - 394305, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afqpj8443M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh M. Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/03/2025

delay in filling the appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the case on merit. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income on 19.09.2017, declaring total income of Rs.4,39,286/- and agriculture income of Rs.4,96,740/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. The AO issued show cause notice

NITINKUMAR MANUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1159/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Nitinkumar Manubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23, Patel Faliya, Varachha Road, 3(2)(8), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम Nana Varachha, Surat-395 006 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Vs [Pan : Abypp 4221 H] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

delay in filing of appeal before Tribunal is condoned. Now adverting to merit to merit of assessee’s case. 6. We find that Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) both passed their ex parte order. We find that assessee while filing his return of income has shown income from salary as well as interest income. There

SHREE ABHISHEK BIPINBHAI NAIK,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik I.T.O., (Prop. Of M/S Shivbhole Services), Ward 1(2)(1), Vs. House No. 1, Desai Faliyu, At Po Surat. Vaktana, Tal, Choryasi Via Sachin, Surat-394230. Pan No. Agppn 5994 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 08/08/2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,37,920/- which consists of income from business of Rs. 1,78,673/- and income from other

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NA vs. ARI, NAVSARIVS.KIRITBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL, NAVSARI

In the result, both appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.965/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ 48, Paradi, Balak Valsad, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Navsari-396 475 Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari, Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel बनाम/ Room No.206, Income Tax Officer, 48, Paradi, Arak Valsad, Vs. Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Navsari-396 475 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the case on merit. 7. Facts in brief are that assessee did not file his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 26.06.2019. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 10.03.2018 and assessee filed return of income. As the return was filed beyond the time allowed