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

5. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee (ITA No.536/SRT/2025) are as follows: “1. Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty 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

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

5. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee (ITA No.536/SRT/2025) are as follows: “1. Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty 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

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

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)

5. We have heard both the parties. The only issue here is relating to penalty imposed amounting to Rs.17,253/- 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

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

section 271 (l)(c). It is further submitted here that if explanation of assessee remains unproved but not disproved by assessing officer, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on jurisdictional Gujarat High Court decision in case of National Textiles v. CIT (24? ITR 125) and CIT v. Jalaram

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

Section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the appellant filed appeal u/s 253(1) of the Act on 09.09.2024, vide ITA No.951/SRT/2024, against the order dated 15.02.2024, which was uploaded on the Income-tax e-filing

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

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that while passing the assessment order the AO made addition on account of undisclosed duty drawback of 70,299/-. The addition was made by taking view that during assessment, assessing officer noted that assessee has credited an amount of ₹ 1,75,523/- on account of duty

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

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

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

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. 17. The penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is based on the quantum addition of Rs.38,83,253/- treated as bogus purchases. In the quantum appeal, the Tribunal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 (supra), decided above, has held that the purchases cannot be disallowed in entirety and restricted the addition

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. 17. The penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is based on the quantum addition of Rs.38,83,253/- treated as bogus purchases. In the quantum appeal, the Tribunal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 (supra), decided above, has held that the purchases cannot be disallowed in entirety and restricted the addition

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

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 submitted

KAMUBEN RAMANLAL PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kamble& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.913/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Smt. Kamuben Ramanlal Patel Income Tax Officer, Daman, बनाम/ House No.1, Varkund, Income Tax Department, Jeevanji Vs. Mithanagar, Nani Daman, Hotel Building, Kathiria Road, Daman & Diu-396 210 Nani Daman, Daman & Diu- -396210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acppk1885N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Hemant Suthar, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shriajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 12.06.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 in levying 100% penalty of Rs.52,46,160/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer on 11.01.2021. Grounds