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

SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.618/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary Huf, Vs. The Ito, 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward- 2(3)(6), Jadakadi, Mahidharpura, Surat Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 7. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee. I note that Assessing Officer has made the estimated addition in the assessee’s case vide assessment order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer under section

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deductions & addition on STCG on sale of shares, without appreciating that the assessee had no mens rea or malafide intention. The disallowance or such addition arose due to non-filing of the return, not due to concealment of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deductions & addition on STCG on sale of shares, without appreciating that the assessee had no mens rea or malafide intention. The disallowance or such addition arose due to non-filing of the return, not due to concealment of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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

51,00,000], which attracts the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The AO\nissued show cause notice on 02.03.2022, which is at page 3 to 4 of the\nassessment order. The AO found that the assessee had sold immovable\nproperty (land) along with four co-owners. The assessee has failed to disclose\nthe long-term capital gain (LTCG

THAKORBHAI & COMPANY,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Thakorbhai & Company, I.T.O., 1, Amalsad Market Yard, Opp. Rly Ward-5, Vs. Station, Amalsad, Gandevi, Gujarat. Navsari. Pan No. Aabft 4392 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The assessee has raised sole ground of appeal which reads as under: “1. The ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in imposing a penalty u/s 271

SHRI VITHALBHAI KADVABHAI KORAT,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat Income Tax Officer, Ward- 55,V.T. Nagar, Near Sarthana 3(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Jakatnaka, Varachha, Majura Gate, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 Pan No: Adkpk 2173 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 24.06.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. 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

M/S. SHREE LAXMI DEVELOPERS,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA , SILVASSA

u/s 144 of the IT Act The than CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide his\norder no. CIT(A)A/LS/282/18-17/59 dated_30.03.2017. The matter is being re-\nadjudicated being available in the list of set aside cases. The ITAT-set aside the case\nof the appellant vide order elated 12.07.2019. Despite many requests, the assessee did\nnot provide confirmation letters

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

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

JITENDRAKUMAR AMBELAL PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Jitendrakumarambelal Patel Ito, Ward-3, 52, Kanbiwad. At & Po-Pananj, Room No. 108, Swapnalok Soc., Tal-Chikhli, Navsari-396521 Vs. Near Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari - 396521 Pan No. Bncpp 7509 R Appellant Respondent

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. MS. JANANI EXPORTS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.604/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year:2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.9, 10 & 19/Srt/2024 (Ays:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.20 To 22/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.35 To 38/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2016-17 To 2019-20) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 139 to 158 of the Act. The special procedure for assessment of search case under Chapter XIV-B u/s 158B to BI for search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and requisition u/s 132A continued till 31st May, 2003. Subsequently, assessment in case of search or requisition is carried out u/s 153A, 153B, 153C and 153D

M/S. SHREE LAXMI DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA, SILVASSA

u/s 144 of the IT Act The than CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide his\norder no. CIT(A)A/LS/282/18-17/59 dated_30.03.2017. The matter is being re-\nadjudicated being available in the list of set aside cases. The ITAT-set aside the case\nof the appellant vide order elated 12.07.2019. Despite many requests, the assessee did\nnot provide confirmation letters

M/S. SHREE LAXMI DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA, SILVASSA

u/s 144 of the IT Act The than CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide his\norder no. CIT(A)A/LS/282/18-17/59 dated 30.03.2017. The matter is being re-\nadjudicated being available in the list of set aside cases. The ITAT-set aside the case\nof the appellant vide order elated 12.07.2019. Despite many requests, the assessee did\nnot provide confirmation letters

SHRI SUDIN MAHADEV SANGODKAR,GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Sudin Mahadev Sangodkar, I.T.O., House No. 46B, 1/5 Next To Fab Ward-Daman Vs. India, Alta Mapusa, Bardez, Daman. North Goa, Goa-403507. Ph.9423530599 Email: Smsangodcar@Gmail.Com Pan No. Ajjps 0830 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) levied by A.O. without a specific charge ad when there was no service of notice on the appellant. 2. The ld. A.O. erred in levying a penalty in respect of credits in bank account which are not in the nature of income. 3. The ld. A.O. erred in not appreciating that the details could

I K CORPORATION,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 20.04.2017. Since facts are same, with consent of the parties, the appeals were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and ITA Nos.789-790/SRT/2024/AY.09-10 I K Corporation brevity. The quantum appeal in ITA No.789/SRT/2024 is treated as lead case. The assessee has raised