SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

125 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay), has held the same ratio. The summary of the judgment of the Hon`ble Bombay High Court, is reproduced below: “Summary: 160. From all the judgments we have quoted about the scope of penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c), read with section 274, of the IT Act, we gather the following: (a) Penalty under section

YASH BHUPESHBHAI TAMAKUWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(5), NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(2)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.580/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yash Bhupeshbhai Tamakuwala, Vs. The Ito, 1/208, Kharadi Sheri, Nanpura, Ward- 1(2)(6), Surat – 395001. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajypt3602P (Appellant) (Respondent)

125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom)/[2021] 280 Taxman 334 (Bom)/[2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom)[11.03.2021] wherein the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted on account of defective notice u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section

HASMUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,VAPI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c) are clearly applicable and it is deemed that the assessee had concealed his particulars of income. In view of above, the Assessing Officer held that assessee has without any reasonable cause ‘concealed his income’ to the extent of Rs.2,97,79,023/- and evaded the tax thereon within the meaning of u/s 271

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. He further submitted that during the appellate proceedings the addition was made on enhancement u/s. 251(1) of the Act for the benefit of telescoping of income/outgoings. He further stated that the undisclosed transactions have been admitted to be undisclosed and he was ready to pay tax on it. It was further submitted

SHRI JERAMBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI THESIA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1574/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jerambhai Parsottambhai V The Deputy Commissioner Thesia, A-17, Vithal Nagar, S Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat. Hirabaug, Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aampt 5791 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

section 271 (l)(c). It is further submitted here that if explanation of assessee remains unproved but not disproved by assessing officer, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on jurisdictional Gujarat High Court decision in case of National Textiles v. CIT (24? ITR 125

SHRI PARESH K. SORATHIYA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2018 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Paresh Sorathiya Income Tax Officer 195, Ambica Nagar No.2, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs Opp. Arogya Kendra, Gate, Surat-395001 Katargam Road, Surat Pan : Axbps 9579 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted.” 2. On perusal of record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) passed impugned order on 20.08.2015, however, this appeal was filed on 02.05.2018. Thus, there is a delay

KANERIYA SAND AND AGGREGATES PVT.LTD,SURAT vs. DY.CIT, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Kaneriya Sand & The Dy. Commissioner Of Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs U-6, Jk Towers, Ring Road, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Surat. Pan : Aadck8622N Applicant Respondent

u/s 41(1) which cannot be levied where the difference was due to genuine reason and there was no evidence to suggest that it was done with the consent or knowledge of the assessee. 5.The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts to confirm the penalty without considering that even if considered it as income

CHIMANBHAI A. KANTESARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal s) may please be deleted. Sh.Chimanbhai A Kantesaria 3. Appellant craves leave to ad, alter or delete any grounds(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief

SHRI PIYUSHKUMAR AMBALAL SHROFF,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, BHARUAH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1692/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Piyushkumr A. Shroff (Huf), V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Ketan H Shah, Advocate, . Income-Tax, 93 Sapphire Complex, C G Road, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 Pan: Aachp 9491 E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Similarly, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textile 249 ITR 125 (Gujarat) held that addition made is not Piyush A Shroff (HUF) v. DCIT- Bharuch/ I.T.A. No.1692/AHD/2014/A.Y.03-04 Page 6 of 6 conclusive, where the assessee has furnished evidence; it was held that no penalty is leviable

M/S. VEER GEMS,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1767/Ahd/2017: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010- 11 M/S. Veer Gems V. Deputy Commissioner Of 7/2982/ Parsi Sheri Income, Saiyedpura Surat 395003 Central Circle-3 Surat Pan: Aabfv 6446 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s. 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act by making addition of Rs. 9,64,15,353 under section 92CA(3) and disallowance of Rs. 2,08,359 being foreign travelling expenses. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings on above additions. However, in appeal Ld. CIT (A) had deleted the addition made under section 92CA(3) and Veer

SARAS PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,VALSAD vs. THE DY.CIT, VALSAD CIRCLE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.689/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08 Saras Plywood Products Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.744, New G.I.D.C, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Gundlav, Valsad. Pan: Aahcs 8945G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

125 (Guj) and CIT v. Jalaram Oil Mills [2002] 253 ITR 192 (Guj). Therefore, it has been claimed that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income. Besides, the learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the additions on which penalty has been levied has been admitted by the Hon'ble High

M/S. PANCHSHEEL INTERMEDIATES,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Panchsheel Intermediates Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8101, Income Tax, Circle-2(3) Vs. Industrial Estate, Surat Sachin, Surat Pan : Aadfp1002C Appellant Respondednt

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 3.Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” M/s Panchseel Intermediates, Surat 2. Brief

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

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Physical hearing) Dinaben Dilipkumar Patel, I.T.O., C/o- Hitendra Desai, 48/49, Ward-2, Vs. Bandhan, Patel Nagar Society, Navsari. Chhapra Road, Navsari-396445. PAN No. AAVPP 5860 A Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Darshit J Naik, CA & Shri Jairaj M Naik, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23/03/2023

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

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Physical hearing) Dinaben Dilipkumar Patel, I.T.O., C/o- Hitendra Desai, 48/49, Ward-2, Vs. Bandhan, Patel Nagar Society, Navsari. Chhapra Road, Navsari-396445. PAN No. AAVPP 5860 A Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Darshit J Naik, CA & Shri Jairaj M Naik, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23/03/2023

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. MS. JANANI EXPORTS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.604/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year:2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.9, 10 & 19/Srt/2024 (Ays:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.20 To 22/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.35 To 38/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2016-17 To 2019-20) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 139 to 158 of the Act. The special procedure for assessment of search case under Chapter XIV-B u/s 158B to BI for search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and requisition u/s 132A continued till 31st May, 2003. Subsequently, assessment in case of search or requisition is carried out u/s 153A, 153B, 153C and 153D

KAMUBEN RAMANLAL PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kamble& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.913/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Smt. Kamuben Ramanlal Patel Income Tax Officer, Daman, बनाम/ House No.1, Varkund, Income Tax Department, Jeevanji Vs. Mithanagar, Nani Daman, Hotel Building, Kathiria Road, Daman & Diu-396 210 Nani Daman, Daman & Diu- -396210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acppk1885N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Hemant Suthar, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shriajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 12.06.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 in levying 100% penalty of Rs.52,46,160/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer on 11.01.2021. Grounds

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. SHRI MANISH KASHIRAM PATEL,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1359 & 1481/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shankarlal C. Shah, The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. 199-201, Vishal Nagar Society, Surat. Udhna, Magdalla Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeups4161E The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Manish Kashiram Patel, Surat. 15-16, Vanita Residency, Althan Canal Road, Althan, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp5085E (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Appellant)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” ITA.1359 & 1481/AHD/2016 Assessment Year. 2012-13 Shankarlal C Shah & Manish K. Patel 19. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 20. In respect of additional grounds, ld Counsel pleads that action of the Assessing Officer in framing

SHANKARLAL C SHAH,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1359 & 1481/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shankarlal C. Shah, The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. 199-201, Vishal Nagar Society, Surat. Udhna, Magdalla Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeups4161E The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Manish Kashiram Patel, Surat. 15-16, Vanita Residency, Althan Canal Road, Althan, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp5085E (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Appellant)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” ITA.1359 & 1481/AHD/2016 Assessment Year. 2012-13 Shankarlal C Shah & Manish K. Patel 19. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 20. In respect of additional grounds, ld Counsel pleads that action of the Assessing Officer in framing

M/S. J.K. JEWELLERS,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.440/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Bharuch. Station Road, Near Rungta School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.443/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Station Road, Near Rungta Bharuch. School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) and holding ground no.5 to be pre-mature. 5. The assessee craves leave to add, amend and/or alter the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 5. Since the grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue and Assessee are interconnected and mix, therefore, we shall adjudicate them together