MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala dated 20.06.2023 for assessment years (AYs) 2009-10 and 2010-11, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala dated 20.06.2023 for assessment years (AYs) 2009-10 and 2010-11, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala dated 20.06.2023 for assessment years (AYs) 2009-10 and 2010-11, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala dated 20.06.2023 for assessment years (AYs) 2009-10 and 2010-11, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s

GHANSHYAMBHAI KANJIBHAI GANGADIA,SURAT vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethi.T(Ss).A. No. 08/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ghanshyambhai Kanjibhai Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Gangadia-Individual, Income Tax, Bungalow No.11, Kantareshvar Central Circle-3, Society, Nr. Balashram, Surat Katargam, Surat-395004 [Pan No.Aawpg3371J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 56 (2)(viib) of the Act. The relevant extracts of the assessment order is reproduced below for ready reference: “5.3 In view of the above, by invoking provisions of sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act the difference in the market value and the documentation value of the properties purchased by the assessee as tabled above to the tune

ASHISH JAYANTILAL PANDYA,SURAT vs. ITO,WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.629/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Ashish Jayantilal Pandya The Ito, Vs. G/25, Shubhlaxmi Complex, Near Ward - 1(3)(1), Agresan Bhavan, City Light Road, Surat Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavpp8182D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025

56,820/-. The AO had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the order of AO, which was dismissed by the CIT(A). Thereafter, the AO passed order u/s 271(1)(c) on 18.01.2019 wherein penalty of Rs.23,27,000/- was levied

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

2 of 10 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the ld.Assessing Officer(AO) found that assessee was maintaining bank account at ICICI Bank, which was not reflected. It was further noticed

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

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

GTPL RAJWADI NETWORK PVT. LTD.,BAMROLI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-1(1)(2), SURAT

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 28.06.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in penalty confirming the action of Assessing

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

Penalty notice u/s. 271(l)(b) was also issued on 08.09.2017. The assessee with other persons have transferred two non- agricultural land to Shanti Integrated Textile Park Pvt. Ltd. and Assessee’s share was Rs.2.28,72,600. The assessee has not offered any capital gain or business income on sale of above land. The assessee vide letter dated 22nd December

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. K. G. DEVELOPERS, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

56,949/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income to impose penalty us 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. K. G. DEVELOPERS, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

56,949/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income to impose penalty us 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case

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

RAJENDRAKUMAR ICHUBHAI KOTHARI,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.835/Srt/2025 आयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.836/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai The Ito बनाम/ Kothari Ward-1(4) V/S. 2 119 Parkhetiafaliyu Kervada Bharuch – 356 069 Amod Bharuch Bharuch – 392 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cfupk 6177 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Modiani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/06/2025 (Quantum Appeal) & 12/06/2025 (Penalty Appeal) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14. Ita Nos.835 & 836/Srt/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the impugned penalty. 4. During the assessment proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee produced land records/7/12 abstract and the property deed to show that there were 4 co-owners of the property. However, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the said documents were additional evidences and the assessee

RAJENDRAKUMAR ICHUBHAI KOTHARI,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.835/Srt/2025 आयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.836/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai The Ito बनाम/ Kothari Ward-1(4) V/S. 2 119 Parkhetiafaliyu Kervada Bharuch – 356 069 Amod Bharuch Bharuch – 392 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cfupk 6177 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Modiani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/06/2025 (Quantum Appeal) & 12/06/2025 (Penalty Appeal) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14. Ita Nos.835 & 836/Srt/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the impugned penalty. 4. During the assessment proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee produced land records/7/12 abstract and the property deed to show that there were 4 co-owners of the property. However, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the said documents were additional evidences and the assessee