SHRI PARESH K. SORATHIYA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2018 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Paresh Sorathiya Income Tax Officer 195, Ambica Nagar No.2, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs Opp. Arogya Kendra, Gate, Surat-395001 Katargam Road, Surat Pan : Axbps 9579 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted.” 2. On perusal of record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) passed impugned order on 20.08.2015, however, this appeal was filed on 02.05.2018. Thus, there is a delay

BHARATBHAI NAGINBHAI PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 249(2) of the IT Act, 1961. 4.The Chartered Accountant at Surat was also not having any experience or exposure in attending appeal before CIT(A) therefore said Chartered Accountant has not filed any Miscellaneous Application or Affidavit for Condonation of Delay and such miscellaneous application and affidavit is being filed before Hon'ble Surat for the first time

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and two penalty orders passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. These three appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10, are barred by limitation by one day. The assessee has moved

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and two penalty orders passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. These three appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10, are barred by limitation by one day. The assessee has moved

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and two penalty orders passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. These three appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10, are barred by limitation by one day. The assessee has moved

RAGHUNANDAN IMPEX PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Raghunandan Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ito Ward 2(1)(1), 6/2037, Office No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 222, Papadwala Building, Bhoja Bhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Majura Gate, Surat-395003. Surat-395001. Pan No. Aaecr 5688 Q Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)(c) is intrinsically dependent upon the fate of the corresponding quan the corresponding quantum addition and that the deletion, tum addition and that the deletion, modification, or sustenance of the same would directly influence modification, or sustenance of the same would directly influence modification, or sustenance of the same would directly influence the outcome of the penalty

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 271(1)(c) of the I T Act. 2. It is therefore prayedthat the above penalty may please be deleted as the learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete/change or modify any or all the grounds ofappeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Perusal of record shows

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 271(1)(c) of the I T Act. 2. It is therefore prayedthat the above penalty may please be deleted as the learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete/change or modify any or all the grounds ofappeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Perusal of record shows

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 271(1)(c) of the I T Act. 2. It is therefore prayedthat the above penalty may please be deleted as the learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete/change or modify any or all the grounds ofappeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Perusal of record shows

KANTILAL DAYALBHAI RAMBHAI ,SURAT vs. ITO(INT. TAX), SURAT

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

271(1)(c)", "Section 274", "Section 271F", "Section 55A", "Section 2(14)", "Section 45"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of PAN mismatch without adjudicating on merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2,61,330/-. The assessment was completed on 20.06.2021 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2,61,330/-. The assessment was completed on 20.06.2021 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2,61,330/-. The assessment was completed on 20.06.2021 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2,61,330/-. The assessment was completed on 20.06.2021 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271