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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury 2. Since common and identical issue are involved except variance in amount, therefore these two appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidate order is being passed for the convenience

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, 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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury 2. Since common and identical issue are involved except variance in amount, therefore these two appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidate order is being passed for the convenience

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the estimated addition by the AO, which has been sustained by the CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that similar penalty imposed in case of its sister concern, M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was deleted by the ITAT in ITA Nos.132 & 133/SRT/2021 (supra). Further, the ITAT in case

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the estimated addition by the AO, which has been sustained by the CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that similar penalty imposed in case of its sister concern, M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was deleted by the ITAT in ITA Nos.132 & 133/SRT/2021 (supra). Further, the ITAT in case

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the estimated addition by the AO, which has been sustained by the CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that similar penalty imposed in case of its sister concern, M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was deleted by the ITAT in ITA Nos.132 & 133/SRT/2021 (supra). Further, the ITAT in case

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the estimated addition by the AO, which has been sustained by the CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that similar penalty imposed in case of its sister concern, M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was deleted by the ITAT in ITA Nos.132 & 133/SRT/2021 (supra). Further, the ITAT in case

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 54F of the Act, during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, while making the addition the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act observing as follows:- “By claiming incorrect deduction, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, for which, penalty proceedings u/s. 271

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

143(3). While setting aside the impugned order, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.” 15. We also note that Ld. CIT(A) sustained penalty at Rs.5,000/- partly for second default. However, the quantum of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), for each default is Rs.10,000/-, which is mentioned in clause (ii) sub-Section

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

143(3). While setting aside the impugned order, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.” 15. We also note that Ld. CIT(A) sustained penalty at Rs.5,000/- partly for second default. However, the quantum of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), for each default is Rs.10,000/-, which is mentioned in clause (ii) sub-Section

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

143(3). While setting aside the impugned order, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.” 15. We also note that Ld. CIT(A) sustained penalty at Rs.5,000/- partly for second default. However, the quantum of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), for each default is Rs.10,000/-, which is mentioned in clause (ii) sub-Section

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

143(3). While setting aside the impugned order, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.” 15. We also note that Ld. CIT(A) sustained penalty at Rs.5,000/- partly for second default. However, the quantum of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), for each default is Rs.10,000/-, which is mentioned in clause (ii) sub-Section

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

143(3). While setting aside the impugned order, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.” 15. We also note that Ld. CIT(A) sustained penalty at Rs.5,000/- partly for second default. However, the quantum of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), for each default is Rs.10,000/-, which is mentioned in clause (ii) sub-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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of ITA.580/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 Yash B. Tamakuwala invalid and improper show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. 3) Each Ground of appeal is without prejudice to the other grounds of the appeal. 4) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE BUILDERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AVANTIS ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. PRIME DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. CHHAYA ASSOCIATES,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHAH & DESAI CONSTRUCTION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271