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

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

delayed by 177 days due to communication issues with his tax consultant regarding hearing notices for the appeal before the CIT(A). The AO made a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act, treating cash deposits and credits totaling Rs. 72,68,976/- as unexplained money under section 69A.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

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

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

unexplained money and made an addition in total income. But the assessee's case is meritorious and the assessee should be given one more opportunity to submit a detailed explanation to AO. Ld. AR, therefore, made twin prayers i.e. the delay in filing of appeal be condoned

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

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.” 6. First, we shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.572/SRT/2019, for assessment year 2011-12. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 17.11.2017, declaring total income at Rs. 2,12,000/-. Later on, an information received by Assessing Officer that

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.” 6. First, we shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.572/SRT/2019, for assessment year 2011-12. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 17.11.2017, declaring total income at Rs. 2,12,000/-. Later on, an information received by Assessing Officer that

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.” 6. First, we shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.572/SRT/2019, for assessment year 2011-12. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 17.11.2017, declaring total income at Rs. 2,12,000/-. Later on, an information received by Assessing Officer that

SHAILESH DEVRAJBHAI PADMANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.551/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Hearing) Shailesh Devrajbhai Padmani Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(5), बनाम/ A/503, Swarg Residency, Surat, Room No. 608, 6Nd Floor, Vs. Laxmikant Ashram Road, Nr. Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Hathiwala Mandir, Surat-395 Surat-395 001 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aoupp 6320 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

unexplained money. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of appeal.” 3. In the instant case, appeal filed by the assessee

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

unexplained money u/s 69A. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer by taxing the addition by taking the rate @ 77.25% by attracting S. 115BBE instead of normal tax rate. 4. Even otherwise the amendment in the provision

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)

condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) by the assessee to the credit of ‘District Legal Services Authority, Surat’ within two weeks from the receipt of this order. 6. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 22.02.2018 for AY.2017-18, declaring total income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n7. The Id. AR of the assessee did not press ground No.4 in ITA No. 41/SRT/2024, the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.\n8. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development. It belongs to the Laxminarayan

PRAVINBHAI VALLABHBHAI KAKADIYA-HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.907/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Pravinbhai Vallabhbhai Kakadiya – Huf, Vs. The Ito, M-43, Ratnaprabha Co-Op. Housing Ward – 2(3)(3), Society, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanhp0960R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

unexplained, money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271 AAC of the LT. Act, 1961. ITA No.907/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Pravinbhai

SANDEEP ISHWARLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.28/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sandeep Ishwarlal Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(4), No.3 Ugamnagar Society, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Hirakal Ni Wadi, L.H. Road, Surat-395002 Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adlpp 8509 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 19.03.2014, declaring total income at Rs.2,29,850./-. Thereafter, assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny and assessing officer framed ITA No.28/SRT/2021 A.Y.13-14 Sh. Sandeep I. Patel assessment order under section

USMAN VALI PATEL,BHARUCH GUJARAT vs. WARD 1(2), INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Usman Vali Patel, Vs. Ito, A-14 Assd Park, Near Khwaja Ward – 1(2), Township, Bharuch - 392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aykpp8165B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Krutarth Desai, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) observed that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.15,33,000/- in his bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda. The case was reopened

OMPRAKASH RAMNIVAS SONI L/H. OF HARISH OMPRAKASH SONI,VAPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above\nterms

unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income tax Act, 1961.\n(3) 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 initiating\npenalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.\n(4) It is, therefore, prayed that the above

PRAFULBHAI JAGUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1294/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Prafulbhai Jagubhai Patel, Vs. Ito, 2/7, Dastan, Palsana, Surat – Ward - 1, 394 310 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bvopp8701K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shrijignesh Parikh, Ar With Shri Marufkhan Pathan, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The AO passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.83,42,688/- u/s 69A of the Act and the same added to the total income of the assessee. The total income was determined at Rs.83,42,688/- against returned income of Rs. Nil. 4. Aggrieved

KISHOR RAMESHBHAI MEHTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.1,36,574/- on account of repayment of loan treated as income