THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE INFRA, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

45,00,000/- disclosed at the time of survey u/s.133A. since assessee has treated this income as business income, the onus lies on assessee to substantiate its claim by submitting the name, address of person from whom these money/credits written on impounded book is received. Moreover, the fact remains that had survey proceedings not been carried out in the premise

THE ITO, WARD-1,, BARDOLI vs. M/S. GIRIRAJ DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

45,00,000/- disclosed at the time of survey u/s.133A. since assessee has treated this income as business income, the onus lies on assessee to substantiate its claim by submitting the name, address of person from whom these money/credits written on impounded book is received. Moreover, the fact remains that had survey proceedings not been carried out in the premise

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VISHWAS HITECH INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

45,00,000/- disclosed at the time of survey u/s.133A. since assessee has treated this income as business income, the onus lies on assessee to substantiate its claim by submitting the name, address of person from whom these money/credits written on impounded book is received. Moreover, the fact remains that had survey proceedings not been carried out in the premise

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. VISHWAS CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

45,00,000/- disclosed at the time of survey u/s.133A. since assessee has treated this income as business income, the onus lies on assessee to substantiate its claim by submitting the name, address of person from whom these money/credits written on impounded book is received. Moreover, the fact remains that had survey proceedings not been carried out in the premise

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

45,00,000/- disclosed at the time of survey u/s.133A. since assessee has treated this income as business income, the onus lies on assessee to substantiate its claim by submitting the name, address of person from whom these money/credits written on impounded book is received. Moreover, the fact remains that had survey proceedings not been carried out in the premise

JANAKKUMAR MUKUNDPRASAD PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

45,000/-. Hence, the assessee has defaulted within the meaning of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.3,09,062/-. 5

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), 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.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

45,611/- was carried out for which the payment was also done. It is worthwhile to mention that while making the payments to the importers, the concerned authority of the bank had requested for filing of Form No. 15CB through the C.A. and as such the assessee firm had approached us for the issuance of said certificate in Form No.15CB

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

45,212/- on account of disallowance under Section 40A(3)(b) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee, for concealment of income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, dated 30.03.2015 for assessment order 2012-13, therefore the Assessing Officer should not have recorded reasons again

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WASRD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, dated 30.03.2015 for assessment order 2012-13, therefore the Assessing Officer should not have recorded reasons again

SHRI PIYUSHKUMAR AMBALAL SHROFF,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, BHARUAH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1692/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Piyushkumr A. Shroff (Huf), V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Ketan H Shah, Advocate, . Income-Tax, 93 Sapphire Complex, C G Road, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 Pan: Aachp 9491 E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

45-45 of Paper Book is inclusive of commission as well as brokerage, whereas the AO has compared the same with TDS certificate assuming it as commission income only. Major entries therein are tallied with TDS certificates as per the details filed by the assessee, which were also filed before the AO. Thus, the addition is made on difference

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

u/s 80IA Rs. 2,52,99,629/- 3 Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) Rs.12,00,000/- 4. Club expenses Rs. 5,00,000/- 5. Income on deployment of FCCB funds Credited to Rs. 10,36,47,628/- Capital Work in progress Account Total Rs.13,10,71,257/- ITA 181/SRT/2020 DCIT Vs J K Paper Ltd. 5. In response

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)

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 from

RAMILABEN KALUBHAI KAKADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURAT

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) Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia, I.T.O., 62, Mira Nagar, Bhat Ni Wadi, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Varachha Road, Surat-395008. Surat. Pan No. Aippk 2934 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.” Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia Vs ITO 2. Facts in brief as extracted from the order of lower authorities are that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed and the same was selected for scrutiny

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR R. LOHIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3),, SURAT

In the result, ground no.1 of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2453/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajeshkumar R.Lohia, V The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Abhay Agencies, S Ward-9(3), Surat. 203, Adatiya Awas, Bombay . Market, Umarwad, Surat – 395010. [Pan: Aaqpl 7299 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

5 of 10 We have also considered the decision cited by the assessee in the case of Shri Ojas Ashokbhai Mehta vs. ITO in which in para 4 it is held “We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that in the case of Muralilal Ratanlal Agarwal vs. ACIT (supra), the facts

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

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

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

45,725/- (credit entries), totaling to Rs.12,89,725/- was treated\nas unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added to his income.\nLater on, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also\ninitiated for concealment of income. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s\n271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act was issued on 25.09.2018 and served

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