VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.631 To 637/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Viraj Shirishkumar Modi, Vs. The Dcit, 5, Dwarkadhish Society, Palanpur Patia, Central Circle – 1, Rander Road, Surat – 395009. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bdbpm7942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. In view of the above discussion, the action

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.631 To 637/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Viraj Shirishkumar Modi, Vs. The Dcit, 5, Dwarkadhish Society, Palanpur Patia, Central Circle – 1, Rander Road, Surat – 395009. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bdbpm7942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. In view of the above discussion, the action

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.631 To 637/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Viraj Shirishkumar Modi, Vs. The Dcit, 5, Dwarkadhish Society, Palanpur Patia, Central Circle – 1, Rander Road, Surat – 395009. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bdbpm7942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. In view of the above discussion, the action

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.631 To 637/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Viraj Shirishkumar Modi, Vs. The Dcit, 5, Dwarkadhish Society, Palanpur Patia, Central Circle – 1, Rander Road, Surat – 395009. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bdbpm7942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. In view of the above discussion, the action

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.631 To 637/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Viraj Shirishkumar Modi, Vs. The Dcit, 5, Dwarkadhish Society, Palanpur Patia, Central Circle – 1, Rander Road, Surat – 395009. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bdbpm7942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. In view of the above discussion, the action

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.631 To 637/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Viraj Shirishkumar Modi, Vs. The Dcit, 5, Dwarkadhish Society, Palanpur Patia, Central Circle – 1, Rander Road, Surat – 395009. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bdbpm7942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. In view of the above discussion, the action

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs,.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. Accordingly, the first penalty imposed u/s. 271

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs,.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. Accordingly, the first penalty imposed u/s. 271

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs,.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. Accordingly, the first penalty imposed u/s. 271

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs,.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. Accordingly, the first penalty imposed u/s. 271

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs,.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. Accordingly, the first penalty imposed u/s. 271

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs,.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. Accordingly, the first penalty imposed u/s. 271

JANANI EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

154 ITD 617 has held that where default was same, penalty of Rs,.10,000/- could be imposed for first default made by Assessee in this regard only. Penalty could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2), that remained not complied with, on part of the Assessee. Accordingly, the first penalty imposed u/s. 271

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIR 1(3), SURAT vs. M/S. D.KHUSHALBHAI JEWELLERS,, SURAT

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,71,03,941/- holding that addition due to difference of valuation cannot be held as concealment of income without appreciating that the valuation was correctly made by the A.O. adopting average purchase price of the year, since, no quantitative records were maintained by the assessee to explain the item wise correct purchase price

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SURAT vs. M/S. D.KHUSHALBHAI JEWELLERS,, SURAT

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,71,03,941/- holding that addition due to difference of valuation cannot be held as concealment of income without appreciating that the valuation was correctly made by the A.O. adopting average purchase price of the year, since, no quantitative records were maintained by the assessee to explain the item wise correct purchase price

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since facts are same, with consent of the parties, both appeals were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The quantum appeal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 is treated as “lead” case. 1 ITA Nos.612 & 613/SRT/2025/AY 2007-08 Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd. 2. The grounds of appeal

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since facts are same, with consent of the parties, both appeals were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The quantum appeal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 is treated as “lead” case. 1 ITA Nos.612 & 613/SRT/2025/AY 2007-08 Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd. 2. The grounds of appeal

RAJENDRAPRASAD BABULAL KHETAN,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated on this issue for concealment of income.” 6. In view of the above aforesaid factual and legal discussion and respectfully following the decision of Madras High Court in Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) and decision of Co-ordinate Bench in Prabhodhchandra Ambelal Desai (supra), the revenue cannot treat the assessee

NARESHBHAI ARJANBHAI LATHIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1342/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Vs. Ito, Plot No.97, Laxmi Society, Gajera Circle – 3(3)(3), School Road,Behind Gajera School, Surat Katargam, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adlpp8388A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayashree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 22.10.2024, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case