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)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s

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)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s

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)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s

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)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

149 of the Act.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the\njurisdictional assessing officer has erred in issuing notice u/s. 148A(b) when it\nwas actually required to be issued by the Assessment Unit (NFAC).\n6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

DINESHBHAI MULACHANDABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1371/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dineshbhai Mulachandabhai Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ Patel Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Patidar Faliyu, Bhestan Gam, Gate, Surat-395 001 Choryasi, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bispp 4863 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 7. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be delete as learned Members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 8. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal

KAVITA JAIN,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

penalties proceeding u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income on 25.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 4,99,230/- for A.Y. 2014-15. Subsequently, information was received from the office

VIPULBHAI VITTHALBHAI KAKADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(1)(5), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.543/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid Hearing) Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 301, B/H Golden Point, Anmol Vs. Ward-3(1)(5), Complex Nana Varachha, Surat - 395001 Surat-395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aowpk 3567 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear, hence, the case may please be set aside and restored back