RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act.” 4. First, we shall adjudicate the Summarized and concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA No.195/SRT/2022, where books of accounts of assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer u/s 145(3) of the Act. The summarized and concise ground No.1 is reproduced below for ready

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act.” 4. First, we shall adjudicate the Summarized and concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA No.195/SRT/2022, where books of accounts of assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer u/s 145(3) of the Act. The summarized and concise ground No.1 is reproduced below for ready

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

2– 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in levying penalty of Rs. 11,35,434/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. It is therefore prayed that penalty levied by the assessing officer

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting penalty of Rs.4,21,36,403/-levied

DHANLAXMI PIGMENTS PVT.LTD.,BHARUCH vs. ACIT-, CIRCLE,-2,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Dhanlaxmi Pigments Pvt. A.C.I.T., Ltd., Room No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Plot No. 3019/20/21, Gidc Tax Office, Station Road, Estate, Panoli, District- Bharuch. Bharuch-394116. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aabcd 0214 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal

RAJHANS METALS,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PR. CIT-1,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 3. It is prayed that above order passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax may please be quashed/set aside. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal 3. The relevant material facts

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13 on 25.09.2012 declaring at ‘Nil’ income. The case was selected for scrutiny

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13 on 25.09.2012 declaring at ‘Nil’ income. The case was selected for scrutiny

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDALI LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13 on 25.09.2012 declaring at ‘Nil’ income. The case was selected for scrutiny

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty etc. on my shoulders. I humbly submit that the impugned order is high pitched order and is also arbitrary.” 4. Apart from this, ld Counsel also submitted that entire delay has resulted due to mistake of assessee`s Tax Consultant, Shri Pradip Gohil, who has not checked the order of ld CIT(A) in the e-portal of Income

SHREE GANESH KHAND UDHYOG,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” ITA 1190/AHD/2017/AY.2012-13/249 & 248/SRT/2018/2013-14 & 2014-15 Shree Ganesh Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandli 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13

SHREE GANESH KHAND UDHYOG,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” ITA 1190/AHD/2017/AY.2012-13/249 & 248/SRT/2018/2013-14 & 2014-15 Shree Ganesh Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandli 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs. M/S. J.K. JEWELLERS, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.440/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Bharuch. Station Road, Near Rungta School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.443/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Station Road, Near Rungta Bharuch. School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) and holding ground no.5 to be pre-mature. 5. The assessee craves leave to add, amend and/or alter the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 5. Since the grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue and Assessee are interconnected and mix, therefore, we shall adjudicate them together

M/S. J.K. JEWELLERS,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.440/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Bharuch. Station Road, Near Rungta School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.443/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Station Road, Near Rungta Bharuch. School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) and holding ground no.5 to be pre-mature. 5. The assessee craves leave to add, amend and/or alter the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 5. Since the grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue and Assessee are interconnected and mix, therefore, we shall adjudicate them together

MRS. DAXABEN JAYESHBHAIPATEL,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.228 & 229/Srt/2020 Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Dixaben Jayeshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, Plot No.42, Krishna Colony, Vapi. Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahspp3273F (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

section 40A(3) 228 & 229/SRT/2020/AY.2011-12 & 2012-13 Daxaben Jayeshbhai Patel of the Act and the assessee has split the payments below the threshold limit. Therefore, Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has no evidentiary proof to prove that the URD purchases are genuine. On verification of the bank accounts of the assessee, it is found that the sale receipts

MRS. DIXABEN JAYESHBHAI PATEL,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.228 & 229/Srt/2020 Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Dixaben Jayeshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, Plot No.42, Krishna Colony, Vapi. Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahspp3273F (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

section 40A(3) 228 & 229/SRT/2020/AY.2011-12 & 2012-13 Daxaben Jayeshbhai Patel of the Act and the assessee has split the payments below the threshold limit. Therefore, Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has no evidentiary proof to prove that the URD purchases are genuine. On verification of the bank accounts of the assessee, it is found that the sale receipts