CHAITALI SURIL UDESHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Chaitali Suril Udeshi, I.T.O., A-902, Samanvay Residency, Opp: Safal Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. Parisar-2, South Bopal Daskroi, Surat. Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India). Pan No. Ahgpd 9813 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is illegal and bad in law hence the assessment so made requires to be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening

JERAMBHAI BHAGVANBHAI GOHIL,VARACHHA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in reopening assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act 1961. Jerambhai B Gohil 2. On the facts and circumstances

SHRI ARVINDBHAI LALLUBHAI LAKHANKIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.962/Ahd/2016; "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai V Asst. Commissioner Of Lakhankiya, B-78, Hans Society, S Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aadpl 3819 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

houses. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 04.08.2006 declaring income of Rs.26,11,859/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 31.05.2007, accepting the income returned. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 15.12.2008 assessing total income of Rs.56

M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

house property at Surat were found. However, there were no other evidences relating to expenditure or investment especially to the tune of Rs.2.82 Crores., were found. If the A.O's estimation that three zeros have to be added to the figures on the paper, there should have been some evidences in the form of bills, vouchers, investments etc. found

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.25,23,500/- without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ASRIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.25,23,500/- without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

SUNI DAVIS THAKOLKKARAN,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.548/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Suni Davis Thakolkkaran Income Tax Officer, Ward- A-35, Narayan Park, Hazira 2(3)(6), Surat, 4Th Floor, Vs Main Road, Ichhapore, Surat- Aayakar Bhavan, Anavil 394510 Business Centre, Adajan- Pan : Adhpt 7419 G Hazira Road, Surat-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 143(1) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.11.2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the appellate order ex pare without affording the opportunity

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

148 was filed or not. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notices, proceeded for reassessment. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 11/03/2015. In the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 8,68,000/- (Rs. 10,00,000/- - Rs. 1

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. DMC CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.112/Srt/2021 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, 9Th Trivedi Niwas, Rashtriya Vs Surat, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Shala Road, Ville Parle West, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Mumbai-400056 Surat-395001 Pan No. Aadcd 2089 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

148 of the Act. The assessee requested for supply of reasons recorded. Reason for re-opening was supplied to assessee. The assessee filed his objection against such re-opening on 14.09.2015. The objection of assessee was rejected by speaking order dated 17.11.2015. The Assessing Officer after rejection of objection proceeded for re- assessment. Notice under section 143(2) was served

PRITI BHANSALI,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied is deleted

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblepriti Bhansali, Income Tax Officer, Vs. D 1, Rajashree Nagar, Ward-1, Umalla, Bharuch. Bharuch-39310. [Pan : Agspb2559 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

property documents only for nominee purposes, as per the housing society rules. An ex-parte order under section 148A was passed on 01.04.2022, and consequential notices were uploaded on the income-tax portal. The assessee had Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– not activated her e-filing portal account earlier and activated the same for the first time on 27.04.2024, only

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

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

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

SHANKAR ZETHABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit(Central), 505, Sraynik Park Appartment, Rander Surat. Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfepp7235M Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

house of Shri Bipinbhai Naranbhai Patel at B-54, Vishal Nagar, Near Swaminarayan School, Italva, Navsari, several incriminating documents were seized/impounded and annexurised as A-1 to A-3. The seized documents in Annexure A-3, pages 01 to 04 are cheques issued by the assessee from his bank account, with SBI account number 34977252514. From the facts further gathered

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

property was changed from agriculture land to stock-in-trade. The above string of events and evidence are sufficient to prove that the assessee converted his agriculture land into stock-in-trade before 11-8-2011 when the land came to be converted into non- agriculture land. 9. About additional ground raised by the assessee, Learned Counsel submitted that such

JAYSHREE R. RATHOD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.257/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Ms. Jayshree R Rathod Vs. The Ito, 18, Seema Row House Opp. Royal Ward - 3(1)(1), Residency Anand Mahel Road, Surat Adajan, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acypr2361P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Viral Marfatia, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/05/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 11.01.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s

VIRAL SHAILESH SHAH,VALSAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.536/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Viral Shailesh Shah, Vs. The Acit, C/O. Dr. Shailesh V. Shah, B/H. Valsad Circle, Pramanik Store, Opp. Atul First Valsad Gate, Atul, Valsad – 396020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfaps6008A (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 139 of I.T. Act. Therefore, assessee’s case was re- opened and accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2018 by the ITO, Ward-4, Valsad after obtaining approval of Ld. Pr. CIT, Valsad u/s 151(1) of the IT Act and the same was duly served upon the assessee. 5. As per AIR information