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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that

KHODIYAR ORGANISERS, SURAT,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. Acit, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfk1498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

143(2) of the Act. No rationale is seen to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act when there is no difference in the return of income and assessed income. On careful perusal of Explanation - 1 to Section

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

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(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act is initiated separately on this point

PARTHKUMAR KAUSHIKBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) alongwith notice u/s 142(1) for which there was non- compliance. So the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and even to the show cause notice, the assessee has not responded, the AO was right in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Regarding the legal proposition that where the assessment order is passed

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-1 of 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-1 of 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-1 of 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-1 of 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-1 of Section

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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. VIP CORPORATION,, 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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHANTINATH 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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only