VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 to 2017-18, which in turn arise out of separate assessment and penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 to 2017-18, which in turn arise out of separate assessment and penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 to 2017-18, which in turn arise out of separate assessment and penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 to 2017-18, which in turn arise out of separate assessment and penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 to 2017-18, which in turn arise out of separate assessment and penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 to 2017-18, which in turn arise out of separate assessment and penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act on 27.02.2019 to give details of the transactions, which was also not replied to. We also find that the CIT(A) has also issued five notices as per the ITA Nos.931 to 936/SRT/2024/AYs.2012-13 & 2013-14 Gauravkumar Manilal Patel table given in para 6 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) had issued another notice

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act on 27.02.2019 to give details of the transactions, which was also not replied to. We also find that the CIT(A) has also issued five notices as per the ITA Nos.931 to 936/SRT/2024/AYs.2012-13 & 2013-14 Gauravkumar Manilal Patel table given in para 6 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) had issued another notice

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act on 27.02.2019 to give details of the transactions, which was also not replied to. We also find that the CIT(A) has also issued five notices as per the ITA Nos.931 to 936/SRT/2024/AYs.2012-13 & 2013-14 Gauravkumar Manilal Patel table given in para 6 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) had issued another notice

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act on 27.02.2019 to give details of the transactions, which was also not replied to. We also find that the CIT(A) has also issued five notices as per the ITA Nos.931 to 936/SRT/2024/AYs.2012-13 & 2013-14 Gauravkumar Manilal Patel table given in para 6 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) had issued another notice

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act on 27.02.2019 to give details of the transactions, which was also not replied to. We also find that the CIT(A) has also issued five notices as per the ITA Nos.931 to 936/SRT/2024/AYs.2012-13 & 2013-14 Gauravkumar Manilal Patel table given in para 6 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) had issued another notice

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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 overlooking the facts and circumstances of the case by levying penalty at 5 percent on alleged bogus purchases on estimated basis. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify substitute, delete, change or vary all or any of the ground or grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

133(6)\nof the Act on 27.02.2019 to give details of the transactions, which was also not\nreplied to. We also find that the CIT(A) has also issued five notices as per the\ntable given in para 6 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) had issued another\nnotice on 07.08.2024, fixing the date of hearing on 14.08.2024. This

SARITABEN RAHUL KAKADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.553/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Saritaben Rahul Kakadia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(3), S.R. Textiles, 59, Vishnu Nagar, Surat. Near Ankur Char Rasta, Varachha, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Clnpk0716K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Surat-3/10420/2016-17 Dated 22.10.2019, Which In Turn Arise Out Of 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 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). (2) The assessee craves leave to add, alter or vary

NIRMALABEN JASWANTSINH RATHOD,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-5, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without a specific finding of fact as to whether the appellant has concealed any income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income is contrary to law and hence deserves to be deleted. “3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate

NIRMALABEN JASWANTSINH RATHOD,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-5, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without a specific finding of fact as to whether the appellant has concealed any income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income is contrary to law and hence deserves to be deleted. “3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate

PANKAJKUMAR SEVANTILAL PARMAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.On the facts in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the income Tax (Appeals) has not provided the ample opportunities to her the case and passed ex-arte order, hence the case may please be allowed

PANKAJKUMAR SEVANTILAL PARMAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.On the facts in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the income Tax (Appeals) has not provided the ample opportunities to her the case and passed ex-arte order, hence the case may please be allowed