VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.,-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provision of section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer has duly recorded the satisfaction for issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act. Further, it is not the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has not recorded the satisfaction in the assessee's case

SANJAY SIVABHAGWAN KEYAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, invoking his statutory powers under section 133(6) of the Act, invoking his statutory powers

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(1),, SURAT vs. ENVIRO CONTROL PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Vs. Surat. Maharashtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aaace 8700 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

6% of bogus purchases as against disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 100% of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.7,99,56,728/- ignoring the facts that these purchases from three concerns namely M/s. Ceeport Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Pearl International and M/s. Vidhi Metal Industries, are non-genuine transactions as the assesse failed to substantiate

VIVEK KHABIA,SURAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1072/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Vivek Khabia Income Tax Officer, Ward- H.No.1187-90-91, 1089, Office 2(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम No.411, New Dtc Gheekanta Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Vs Road, Nr. Bhavani Vad Temple, Haripura, Surat-395 003 [Pan : Avspk 5724 E] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

133(6) cannot be a reason to treat the bona fide purchase and sales as non-genuine. 2 Vivek Khabia 6.0 Without prejudice to grounds no.1 to 5, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have estimated the profit @1.00 % on disputed purchase and sales, since only the real profit embedded on disputed transactions could be brought to tax. 7.0 Without prejudice

KANCHAN DEVI AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Pruseth

133(6) of the Act. However, the ld.AO did not get satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.25.00 lakhs under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4. Before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee challenged

KANCHAN DEVI AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Pruseth

133(6) of the Act. However, the ld.AO did not get satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.25.00 lakhs under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4. Before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee challenged

JYOTIBEN KETAN KUMAR RANA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.354/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Smt. Jyotiben Ketankumar Income Tax Officer, Rana, Ward- 1(2)(2) Surat 79 Jangnath Society, Khatodara Udhna Surat Pan: Akapr 7370 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment proceeding must fail. Therefore, tribunal held that material must indicate the escapement of income on the basis of reasons recorded. Hence, this decision of Tribunal is distinguishable on facts, as in the case of the assessee notice under section 148 was issued after recording reasons for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Similarly, in the case

YUSUFBHAI GAFURBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. I.T.O WARD- 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

133(6) of the Act. Explanation 2(a) to section 147 deems income to have escaped assessment where no return of income has been furnished, whereas in the present case, the assessee had duly furnished return of income in response to notice u/s 148 and had already discharged his tax liability on the impugned transaction. It is a settled principle

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the I.T. Act, shows that genuineness and identity and creditworthiness of these concerns are doubtful, It is also pertinent to mention here the third party who has submitted their replies are not having sale/purchase transactions. (iii) Subsequently inspector of this office was deputed enquiry about the business and whereabouts of assessee-company. It was reported

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the I.T. Act, shows that genuineness and identity and creditworthiness of these concerns are doubtful, It is also pertinent to mention here the third party who has submitted their replies are not having sale/purchase transactions. (iii) Subsequently inspector of this office was deputed enquiry about the business and whereabouts of assessee-company. It was reported

SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the I.T. Act, shows that genuineness and identity and creditworthiness of these concerns are doubtful, It is also pertinent to mention here the third party who has submitted their replies are not having sale/purchase transactions. (iii) Subsequently inspector of this office was deputed enquiry about the business and whereabouts of assessee-company. It was reported

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), 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.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) from BSE 2 & 3 4 ii Reports of Directorate of Investigation of Kolkata 3 5 vide their latter No.75A/2015-16/257-273 dated ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar 27.04.2015 iii A statement Shri Anuj Agrawal u/s 131 during 6 to 14 9.1 survey dated 30.03.2015 The ld Counsel stated that addition made on the basis of above documents is liable

FARHA S. KADRI,BILIMORA vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, the original ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

133(6) or 131 of the Act to examine such donor. No such notice was issued by Assessing Officer. Thus, in absence of any enquiry from donor, no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 3.50 lacs. The assessee finally submitted that she has substantiated cash deposit of Rs. 11,20,785/- from cash accumulated

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

133(6) was issued to the assessee asking him to furnish the\ndetails of capital gain for the share transaction. However, no reply has been furnished by the\nassessee. On verification of the computation of income, it is seen that the assessee has not declared\nany capital gain and also noticed that claimed exemption

DARSHIT DEVELOPERS ,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.471/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Darshit Developers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, C/O Kashmiraben Shaileshbhai Valsad Room No.204/Palak Vs. Patel/ Bhagwati Bunglowes / Arcade, Near Pali Hill, Tithal Maninagar Society, Tithal Cross Road, Valsad-396001 Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfd 5807 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 07.07.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Cit[A], Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O’S Reopening U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Ignoring The Fact & Law That Incorrect Information Received From Ddit[Inv.] Does Not Give Jurisdictional To The A.O For Invoking Reassessment Proceedings Us/ 147 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld Addition Of Partner’S Capital Of Rs.12,50,000/- [Shilpaben Shah] As Well As Another Partner’S Capital Rs.12,50,000/- [Nipaben Shah] + Total Rs.25,00,000/- Ignoring The Fact That There Was No Business Activity Of Firm In The Year Under Assessment As Well As Partner’S Capital Contribution Cannot Be Treated As Income Of The Firm Considering Facts Of Appellant’S Case.”

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 19.12.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. Ld. CIT[A], NFAC, DELHI has erred in law and on facts to upheld A.O’s reopening u/s 147 and issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act ignoring

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. MAGNIFIQUE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.389 & 458/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Magnifique Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 105, Rajshree Building, Maniyara 1(1)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Sheri Na Naka,Mahidharpura, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395003. Civil Hospital, Surat-395001

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.66,33,087/- being 6% of the alleged 389 & 458/SRT/2023 / AY.11-12 Magnifique Gems Pvt. Ltd. purchase of Rs.10,55,51,462/- by treating the genuine

MAGNIFIQUE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.389 & 458/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Magnifique Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 105, Rajshree Building, Maniyara 1(1)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Sheri Na Naka,Mahidharpura, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395003. Civil Hospital, Surat-395001

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.66,33,087/- being 6% of the alleged 389 & 458/SRT/2023 / AY.11-12 Magnifique Gems Pvt. Ltd. purchase of Rs.10,55,51,462/- by treating the genuine

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

133(6) of the Act were issued to the aforementioned three companies, but no response was received from any of them. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 12.03.2022 which was served through affixture vide Panchnama dated 16.03.2022. Again, there was no compliance to the show cause notice. As a result, the cash deposits and credit

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

133(6) of the Act were issued to the aforementioned three companies, but no response was received from any of them. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 12.03.2022 which was served through affixture vide Panchnama dated 16.03.2022. Again, there was no compliance to the show cause notice. As a result, the cash deposits and credit