SHRI FARSURAM RATILAL BHAMWALA,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

house property purely on the basis of assumptions, surmises and conjectures. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A.) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty

SMT. MINAXIBEN HARSHADBHAI MAVANI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Smt. Minaxiben Harshadbhai The Income Tax Officer, Mavani, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat. Vs. 204, Malhar Complex, Icchanath, Surat – 395 007. Pan: Agjpm 8034 B Applicant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 31.03.2014 declaring income o Rs.3,34,590/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer(AO) noted that assessee has sold

SHRI RADHEYSHYAM BISANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

house property and capital gain. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, accepted the return of income. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), 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.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

penalty proceedings u/s.271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 6. Assessee craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts

JAYANTIBHAI JIVABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. WARD NO. 1(1),, BHARUCH

In the result, the penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Act is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

penalty to 50% of the under-reported income of Rs. 11,54,210/- with the following observations: “The income has been reduced on account of salary income revised to Rs. 54,78,950/- in revised return as against Rs. 65,30,005/- offered in original income. The appellant has also revised income from house property

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO. OP HOUSING SOCIETY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s.274 r.w.s. 270A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal

CHINTANBHAI LAVJIBHAI DANKHARA,SURAT vs. ITO, SURAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

house property the source of which remained unexplained. The order under Section 147 was passed ex-parte since the assessee failed to participate in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Chintanbhai Lavjibhai Dankhara vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 3. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where again the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal

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

penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act. 3. 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 not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

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

house property, income from partnership-firm and income\nfrom other sources during the year under consideration. The return was processed\nu/s 143(1) of the Act on 19.03.2013. Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s 147 of\nthe Act after recording the reasons by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on\n28.03.2019. As per the information received, a search

DESH BHUSHAN SINGHAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.862/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Desh Bhushan Singhal, Vs. Income Tax Officer G-12, Rittz Square, Nr. Indoor Ward-1(3)(1), Stadium, Ghod Dod Road, Surat - Surat 395 007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acips3627H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025

property as per stamp duty value, i.e., Rs.4,90,842/- (i.e., 86,31,642 – 81,40,800). During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had shown large amounts of sundry creditors of Rs.6,23,35,076/-. The AO asked the assessee to explain/produce details of sundry creditors along with supporting evidence. The assessee had failed to explain

JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.20/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jitendra Mehta, Vs. Ito, Office No.M-24, Mezn Floor, Ward – 1(1)(3), 10/21, Flox Chamber, Tata Road Surat No. 1, Opera House, Mumbai – 400004, Maharashtra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ambpm9018P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025

house property sold. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 50C without considering the fact that the valuation was referred to DVO and report of DVO was pending as on the date of order. ITA No.20/SRT/2025/AY.2018-19 Jitendra Mehta 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI HARESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL MAHADEVWALA HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before at in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the grounds of appeal raised are that the assessee

HASMUKH KANJIBHAI TADHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Hasmukh Kanjibhai Tadhani, Vs. The Ito, 170, Vaikunth Dham Society, Ward – 3(3)(3), Laxmikant Ashram Road, Surat Katargam, Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafpt1257K (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and also has income from business and profession to the tune of Rs.10,70,000/-, as a remuneration received from Shivam Polishing LLP. The assessee also received profit from Shivam Polishing LLP to the tune of Rs.12,73,620/-. The assessee also submitted the detail of cash deposited during the year under consideration of Rs.5,07,000/-, vide

RAJENDRAPRASAD BABULAL KHETAN,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Property, Business and Profession, and Other Sources. The assessee filed original return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18, on 29.12.2017, declaring total income of Rs.24,77,900/-. This return of income was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In assessee`s case no assessment was completed earlier

JIGNESH RAJKUMAR MEHTA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Jignesh Rajkumar Mehta, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), 48, Sankalp Society, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Bhatar, Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm2561Q Assessee By Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

penalty of Rs.10000/- when it is not in violation of the provision of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.4000/- towards interest debited to P & L Account. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income

GANI MOHAMMAD POPAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3, VAPI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Popat Yasin Abdulganibhai, I.T.O., Son & L/H Of Late Gani Mohammad Ward-3, Vs. Popat, Vapi. Bombay Market, Zanda Chowk, Near S.T. Bus Depot, Vapi. Pan No. Akvpp 0747 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Initially, this appeal was filed on 11.11.2019, under the signature of assessee. After filing appeal, the assessee died on 05.07.2021. The legal heir of assessee filed

JAYESH DOLATBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD 2, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical 8

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.287/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Jayesh Dolatbhai Patel, Vs. Ito, Shop No.1, Arihant Saroj, M.G. Ward – 2, Road, Old Navyug Store, Valsad Valsad - 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apmpp3588D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms Jaishree Thakur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025

penalty was listed on 03.03.2025. His counsel discussed the matter and advised him to file appeal before the Tribunal. The delay in filing the appeal was inadvertent and unintentional. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that the delay was unintentional, bonafide and assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. He requested that the delay may be condoned in the interest

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

property was funded by a housing loan from HDFC Bank, therefore, directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.70,50,000/- made u/s.69 of the Act. Regarding the addition of Rs.23,41,300/- made on account of unexplained cash ITA Nos.329 & 330/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 deposit, the CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee that the same were made from past