CHANDULAL A.SHAH(HUF),SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, Ind for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A Nos.83 & 84/Srt/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2000-01 & 2004-05 1.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah (Huf), V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aaahc 8116 R] 2.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah, V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Adaps 5844 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

69 of the Act. 34. Ground No.8 relates to confirmation of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 2,24,800 under section 69C of the Act. Chandulal A Shah (HUF) v. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1),Surat/ITA. 83 & 84/SRT/2017/A.Y.2000-01 & 2004-05 Page 11 of 15 35. Ground No.9 relates to confirmation of unexplained expenses of Rs.2,35,000 under section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

section 32, the goodwill is no more depreciable asset, we are of the view that the amendment brought in the Act by way of Finance Act 2021 will be applicable prospectively and not in the year under consideration. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we do not find any legality in finding of Ld. CIT(A), which

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

section 32, the goodwill is no more depreciable asset, we are of the view that the amendment brought in the Act by way of Finance Act 2021 will be applicable prospectively and not in the year under consideration. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we do not find any legality in finding of Ld. CIT(A), which

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation and amortization has significantly increased for the year as compared to preceding year as can be seen in the table shown below: Assessment Year. 2012-13 Kritiprada Fashion P Ltd. A.Y. Net Profit/ (Loss) (Rs.) Cash Profit (Rs.) 2011-12 (67,74,595) 18,13,564 2012-13 5,88,362 1,08,82,127 Thus, ld Counsel submits

PRADEEPSINH BACHUBHAI GOHIL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Pradeepsinh Bachubhai Gohil, I.T.O., 304, Kailash Tower, N H No. 8, Ward-4, Vs. Samroli Chikhli, Dist.-Navsari, Navsari. Navsari-396521. Pan No. Aropg 7048 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

69 of the Act on account of credit entry appeared in the bank account of assessee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission. On the written submission of assessee, the ld. CIT(A) called remand report from Assessing Officer, however, copy of 2 Shri Pradeepsinh Bachubhai

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

depreciable asset used for the purpose of business is to be taxed under the head "capital gain" Therefore, according to the CIT(A), the AO had taken a myopic view of the matter by holding that merely because an asset is a business asset, the gain on its sale will be taxed as business income. b. The AO has himself

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has restricted the addition to 5% of the impugned purchases. Before ld CIT(A) the assessee has also argued that reopening of assessment under section

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has restricted the addition to 5% of the impugned purchases. Before ld CIT(A) the assessee has also argued that reopening of assessment under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has restricted the addition to 5% of the impugned purchases. Before ld CIT(A) the assessee has also argued that reopening of assessment under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has restricted the addition to 5% of the impugned purchases. Before ld CIT(A) the assessee has also argued that reopening of assessment under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has restricted the addition to 5% of the impugned purchases. Before ld CIT(A) the assessee has also argued that reopening of assessment under section