BASANT SEKHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

unexplained investment. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 13/1/2018. Alongwith appeal, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay

ITO, WARD 3(2)(2), SURAT vs. CHINUBHAI VAGHJIBHAI SHETH, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.541 & 572/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(2), Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Room No. 416, Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Choksi Apartment, Shop Opp. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Jain Temple, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Vs. Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Income Tax Officer, Ward- 16, Chokshi Apartment, Opp. Jain 3(2)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Room Temple, Katargam, Surat-395004 4Th No. 416, Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpcps 0828 C (Appellant ) (Respondent)

condone the delay of 12 days in both the assessee’s appeals and admit both the appeals for adjudication on merits. 4. Since the issue involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience

CHINUBHAI VAGHJIBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.541 & 572/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(2), Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Room No. 416, Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Choksi Apartment, Shop Opp. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Jain Temple, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Vs. Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Income Tax Officer, Ward- 16, Chokshi Apartment, Opp. Jain 3(2)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Room Temple, Katargam, Surat-395004 4Th No. 416, Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpcps 0828 C (Appellant ) (Respondent)

condone the delay of 12 days in both the assessee’s appeals and admit both the appeals for adjudication on merits. 4. Since the issue involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience

CHINUBHAI VAGHJIBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.541 & 572/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(2), Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Room No. 416, Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Choksi Apartment, Shop Opp. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Jain Temple, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Vs. Chinubhai Vaghjibhai Sheth Income Tax Officer, Ward- 16, Chokshi Apartment, Opp. Jain 3(2)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Room Temple, Katargam, Surat-395004 4Th No. 416, Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpcps 0828 C (Appellant ) (Respondent)

condone the delay of 12 days in both the assessee’s appeals and admit both the appeals for adjudication on merits. 4. Since the issue involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience

I K CORPORATION ,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay.” “2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the NFAC has erred in confirming the action of A.O. in reopening assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act. 1961.” “3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the NFAC

I K CORPORATION,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay.” “2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the NFAC has erred in confirming the action of A.O. in reopening assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act. 1961.” “3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the NFAC

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

delay of 920 days in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits. Now, we will advert to discuss the merit of the appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for Ay 2009-10, declaring income of Rs. 1,58,000/-. The case

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)

condone the delay in filing appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 9. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and filed her return of income on 04.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs.4,22,502/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice

JAYSHREEBEN NILAMKUMAR DESAI,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayshreeben Nilamkumar Desai, I.T.O., Saket, New Patel Nagar Society, Chhapra Ward-3, Vs. Road, Navsari. Navsari. Pan No. Ambpd 8733 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

unexplained investment in the assessment order dated 03/10/2018 passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, in absence of any explanation or response from assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the additions and reopening, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 03/10/2018. Alongwith appeal, the assessee also filed her affidavit for condonation of delay

MUKESHBHAI KISHORBHAI LAKAHNI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.20/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Hearing) Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakahni, Vs. The Ito, 201, Patel Mansion, 20 Sadhana Ward – 3(3)(3), Soc. Opp. Jain D, Lambe Hanuman Surat Road, Varach Matawadi, Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abppl9388Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in re-opening

BALDEVBHAI VITHHAKBHAI PATEL,PARDI vs. ITO, WARD 1, VAPI

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

unexplained investment and cash credit, respectively, under sections 69A and 68 of the Income-tax Act.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay

SHRENIKKUMAR NATVARLAL VORA,NEW PASHUPATI MARKET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Shrenikkumar Natvarlal Vora, I.T.O., 1012 New Pashupati Market, Ring Ward 2(2)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395002 (Gujarat) Aayakar Bhavan, Pan No. Aalpv 6626 N Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

unexplained investment. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one opportunity is allowed to contest the case on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay is not intentional nor deliberate and may be condoned

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

condone the delay and admit these three appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issues involved in these three appeals, are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Now, I shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.280/SRT/2022, for assessment year

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

condone the delay and admit these three appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issues involved in these three appeals, are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Now, I shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.280/SRT/2022, for assessment year

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

condone the delay and admit these three appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issues involved in these three appeals, are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Now, I shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.280/SRT/2022, for assessment year

JAYANTILAL HIRABHAI PATAL,SURAT vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of the appeal raised by the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Dipikaben J. Patel, I.T.O.(International (Legal Heir Of Late Mr. Jayantilal H Patel), Taxation), Vs. 19/B, Suryadarshan Society-2, Pragati Surat. Villa, Segvi Road, Valsad-396001. Pan No. Arypp 2776 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26/12/2017. 3. On coming to know about the additions in the assessment order against the assessee, the legal heirs of assessee/appellant filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), in the statement

BHUPATBHAI DHANJIBHAI KOTHARI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

unexplained investment. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.", "held": "The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 1261 days in filing the appeal and refused to condone

MADHVI AJITKUMAR RANKA ,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Vs. Acit, 88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahfpr5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

investment in agricultural land by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts that sources of the same stood explained. 6) Without prejudice to Ground No.5, both lower authorities erred in doubly taxing the amount of Rs.10,79,025/- u/s 68 of the Act. 7) Based on the facts and circumstances