SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. He further submitted that during the appellate proceedings the addition was made on enhancement u/s. 251(1) of the Act for the benefit of telescoping of income/outgoings. He further stated that the undisclosed transactions have been admitted to be undisclosed and he was ready to pay tax on it. It was further submitted

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 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 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

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

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there

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

SHRI SALAHUDDIN H. BAIG,,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Bardoli therefore, this clearly amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of particulars income by the assessee. The findings of the AO at Para No. 5 of the penalty order reads as under:- “5. The explanation of the assessee is duly considered. However, it is found

ALPESH UMESHCHANDRA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

u/s 263 of the Act and the impugned order passed u/s- 263 of the Act. deserves to be quashed. 3. That the order passed by learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax- 1, Surat, u/s-263 of IT Act setting aside the assessment framed u/s-147 r.w.s144 AlpeshUmeshchandra vs. ITO Asst. Year –2016-17 - 2– r.w.s.144B of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial

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