Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

104 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,253 Mumbai1,227 Ahmedabad276 Jaipur234 Chennai223 Bangalore185 Hyderabad169 Kolkata149 Indore136 Pune130 Surat104 Chandigarh93 Raipur87 Rajkot66 Nagpur65 Visakhapatnam52 Allahabad46 Lucknow44 Amritsar40 Cuttack33 Guwahati31 Cochin28 SC26 Ranchi25 Jodhpur18 Agra17 Panaji13 Varanasi12 Patna10 Jabalpur10 Dehradun9 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)218 Addition to Income84 Penalty74 Disallowance54 Section 143(3)40 Section 6831 Section 14827 Deduction27 Bogus Purchases25 Section 250

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance had been restricted by the Tribunal to 5%. The CIT(A) therefore held that the assessee was liable for penalty under section 271(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 104 · Page 1 of 6

24

Section 254(1)22

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

disallowance under section 54EC of Rs. 50,00,000/-. It was argued that once the Tribunal has taken a view that the assessee is entitled for full deduction under section 54EC, no penalty under section 271(1

JAYANTIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 408/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ito, New Delhi, 283, Padm Punj, Siddhanth Bharuch-392001. Nagar Soceity, Gujarat Housing Vs. Board, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aebpp 3770 P Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 06/10/2025 Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None for

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1) of the Act, which reads as under: "Explanation 1:- Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act, - A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 336/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navsari Malesar Behdin Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward, Room Anjuman, Agary Street, Vs No.105, 1St Floor, Anavil Malesar, Business Centre, Aayakar Navsari-396445 Bhavan, Adajan Hazira Road, Pan No. Aaatn 6124 C Adajan, Surat-395007 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 11Section 156Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance / addition made by the Assessing Officer in quantum assessment was deleted by this Bench of this in ITA No.272/SRT/2018 dated 07.02.2020. 6. We find that during the pendency of appeal in quantum assessment before Tribunal, the Assessing Officer started penalty proceedings. The assessing officer issued show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)(a)Section 40A(3)(b)

1,49,160/-. Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed, determining total income at Rs. 35,33,360/- after disallowance of Rs. 18,27,989/- under Section 40A(3)(a) of the Act and Rs. 15,45,212/- on account of disallowance under Section 40A(3)(b) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271

KHODIYAR ORGANISERS, SURAT,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. Acit, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfk1498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1), it may be seen that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purpose of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation – 1 to section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1068/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

disallowance to 0% of the disputed purchases. This appeal is against the penalty imposed on the bogus purchases. Various courts have decided in their judgements that no penalty under section 271(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1062/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

disallowance to 0% of the disputed purchases. This appeal is against the penalty imposed on the bogus purchases. Various courts have decided in their judgements that no penalty under section 271(1

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 10(5)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

section 10(5) of the I.T. Act. Accordingly the sum of Rs.2,40,518/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. I am satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and therefore penal proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1

SUDHIR BHUPENDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT. TAX), SURAT

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

ITA 92/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of particulars of income was to be set aside. 12. The ratio of decision of Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication (supra) is at little variance. In the said case, during assessment it was noted that in Schedule 9, relating to Administration and other Expenses, forming part of Profit & Loss Account

BHUPENDRA MAGANLAL NAIK (HUF),NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO. 1, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am (Physical Hearing) Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (Huf), The Ito, Ward No.1, 29/B, Manglam Bunglow, Navsari. Vs Alka Society, Chhapra Road, Navsari, Gujarat – 396445. Pan : Aaghd1504E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) was not attractive. To support of its submission, the assessee relied on various case laws. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that the Ld. CIT(A) during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings, the assessee had deliberately and intentionally not disclosed the true and correct income with the intention

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, SURAT vs. NAVINBHAI HIMATLAL SHAH, DIWALI BAUG ATHWALINES

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 115/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee had failed to offer an explanation or which was found by the A.O. to be false? e) On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. f) It is therefore prayed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT, SURAT vs. HITESHBHAI POPATBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee had failed to offer an explanation or which was found by the A.O. to be false? e) On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. f) It is therefore prayed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT, SURAT vs. HITESHBHAI POPATBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 109/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee had failed to offer an explanation or which was found by the A.O. to be false? e) On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. f) It is therefore prayed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT, SURAT vs. HITESHBHAI POPATBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 107/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee had failed to offer an explanation or which was found by the A.O. to be false? e) On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. f) It is therefore prayed

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WASRD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

disallow 25% of total unverifiable purchases of Rs.95,17,07,336/- which is worked out to Rs.23,79,26,834/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue