BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

21 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur89Chandigarh28Mumbai26Ahmedabad25Indore23Delhi22Surat21Pune21Bangalore20Chennai9Jabalpur5Cochin4Hyderabad3Rajkot3Kolkata2Allahabad2Raipur2Amritsar2

Key Topics

Section 69A57Section 271(1)(c)47Section 69B20Addition to Income20Penalty14Survey u/s 133A9Section 2508Unexplained Investment8Section 143(2)6

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

Section 254(1)5
Section 695
Section 143(3)3
ITAT Surat
19 Aug 2025
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)© has undergone a substantial change after the insertion of Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)© w.e.f. 1.4.1976. Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption that as and when any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income the same shall be deemed or represent the income in respect of which particulars have

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 51/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 71 of the IT Act…………………." .". The income-tax is only one tax and levied on the sum total on the income classified and chargeable under various heads. Section 14 has classified different heads of income and income under each head is separately computed. Income which is computed in accordance with law is one income and it is not collection

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 71 of the IT Act…………………." .". The income-tax is only one tax and levied on the sum total on the income classified and chargeable under various heads. Section 14 has classified different heads of income and income under each head is separately computed. Income which is computed in accordance with law is one income and it is not collection

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 52/SRT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 71 of the IT Act…………………." .". The income-tax is only one tax and levied on the sum total on the income classified and chargeable under various heads. Section 14 has classified different heads of income and income under each head is separately computed. Income which is computed in accordance with law is one income and it is not collection

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SURAT vs. M/S. D.KHUSHALBHAI JEWELLERS,, SURAT

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 493/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

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,CIR 1(3), SURAT vs. M/S. D.KHUSHALBHAI JEWELLERS,, SURAT

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

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

SHRI VIJESH PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2,, BARODA

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

ITA 749/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. T. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Pandey (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 69B

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant

SHRI BABUBHAI P. JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, BHARUCH

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

ITA 56/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. T. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Pandey (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 69B

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant

SHRI MEHMOOD P. JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, BHARUCH

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

ITA 400/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. T. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Pandey (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 69B

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant

SHRI MEHMOODBHAI PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2,, BARODA

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

ITA 750/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. T. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Pandey (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 69B

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant

SHRI BABUBHAI PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2,, BARODA

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

ITA 748/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. T. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Pandey (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 69B

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant

SHRI VIJESH P. JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, BHARUCH

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

ITA 55/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. T. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Pandey (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 69B

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant