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 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty

VASIMKHAN HAMIDKHAN PATHAN,DANG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Vasimkhan Hamidkhan Pathan Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Navsari, Income Ta Office, Charpool, O Main Bazar, At & Po Waghai Vs. Awabaug, Navsari-396445 Tal, Dang-394730 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bptpp 6081 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

253/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has furnished the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 for AY 2013-14 on 23.04.2018, declaring total income of Rs.3,67,500/. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, on 09.12.2018 determining the total income of Rs.3,67,500/- accepting

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)

253 (Bom)/[2021] 280 Taxman 334 (Bom)/[2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom)[11.03.2021] wherein the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted on account of defective notice u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section 271

HASMUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,VAPI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c) are clearly applicable and it is deemed that the assessee had concealed his particulars of income. In view of above, the Assessing Officer held that assessee has without any reasonable cause ‘concealed his income’ to the extent of Rs.2,97,79,023/- and evaded the tax thereon within the meaning of u/s 271

SHRI JERAMBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI THESIA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1574/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jerambhai Parsottambhai V The Deputy Commissioner Thesia, A-17, Vithal Nagar, S Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat. Hirabaug, Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aampt 5791 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

2. The Explanation does not make the assessment order conclusive evidence that the amount assessed was in fact the income of the assessee. No penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income with the hypothesis that it does. If the assessee gives an explanation which

SANJAYBHAI DAMJIBHAI GOLAKIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. ITA No.951/SRT/2024/AY.2013-14 Sanjay Damjibhai Golakiya 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore, prayed that above penalty levied by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before on in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

VIHAN VIBHAG CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 2(2)(5), At & Po: Vihan, Tal – Kamrej, Surat Tapi – 394320, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabav5113F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal of appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant submitted that Mr. Prativ Patel, tax consultant, was appointed to handle tax matter including filing return of income. The e-mail Id, i.e., hhhkabrawala@gmail.com of the earlier tax consultant was registered

KANTILAL DAYALBHAI RAMBHAI ,SURAT vs. ITO(INT. TAX), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Penalty\nproceedings also initiated by AO u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274, 271 (1)(c) r.w.s. 274\nand 271F of the Act.\n7.\nAggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the\nCIT(A). The findings of the CIT(A) are at pages 7 to 8 of the appellate order. The\nCIT(A) observed that the appellant

SUDHIR BHUPENDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT. TAX), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Sudhir B Desai (2) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the circumstances of the appellant of he being Non-resident Indian and his bona fides. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee

UTKARSH VASANTKUMAR MEHTA,SILVASSA vs. DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

2,45,822/-. Thus, the assessee has shown less duty drawback to the extent of Utkarsh Vasantkumar Mehta AY 2015-16 (penalty U/s 271(1)(c) Rs. 70,299/-. The assessee was issued show cause notice, in the reply the assessee stated that duty drawback is accounted on receipt basis, the duty drawback of Rs. 1,75,253/- received actually

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

penalty levied under 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

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

penalty levied under 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

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

section 253(5) of the Act is sufficiently elastic to enable the Tribunal to apply the law which subserves the ends of 6 ITA Nos.530 & 531/SRT/2024/AYs.2012-13 Balvant Nandlal Talaviya justice. It has been held in a number of cases that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD-1, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

section 253(5) of the Act is sufficiently elastic to enable the Tribunal to apply the law which subserves the ends of 6 ITA Nos.530 & 531/SRT/2024/AYs.2012-13 Balvant Nandlal Talaviya justice. It has been held in a number of cases that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred

BHUPATBHAI DHANJIBHAI KOTHARI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), filed an appeal before the CIT(A)\non the advice of the new consultant. The CIT(A) reiterated the section\n249(3) of the Act and power of the CIT(A) to condone the delay in\nfiling appeal, which is at para 5.1 of his order. The CIT(A) has placed\nreliance in cases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 15.09.2023. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 29.06.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 63 days. The assessee