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

THE ITO, WARD-7(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI RAJKUMAR GOYAL, SURAT

In the result this ground of appeal is also rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1487/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Ward-7(3), Surat. Prop. Of Balaji Corporation, 201, Keshri Nandan Apartment, Bhothia Sheri, Rughnathpura, Surat – 395003. [Pan: Adtpj 2924 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 17.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 29.03.2012 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Unverifiable Purchase Amounting To Rs. 7,91,01,863/-. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of In Difference In Closing Balance Of Rs.8,05,11,522/-. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Be Set Aside & The Assessing Officer ‘S Order Be Restored.”

133(6), the notice returned back unserved. The assessing officer rejected the books of account of assessee and made addition of Rs. 8.05 Crore on account of closing stock. 4. On appeal before learned CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions on both the additions, as recorded in the para 6 & 7 of the impugned order. The learned

SHRI NISHANT KANTILAL PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

reassessment itself is quashed, all other issues on merits of the additions, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic and infructuous. 27. Before parting, we would like to mention that sanction for issue of notice under section 151 is in accordance with law, as the JCIT has gone through the facts and then approved it, hence there

SMT. MUKTABEN NISHANTBHAI PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

reassessment itself is quashed, all other issues on merits of the additions, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic and infructuous. 27. Before parting, we would like to mention that sanction for issue of notice under section 151 is in accordance with law, as the JCIT has gone through the facts and then approved it, hence there

SHRI NISHANT KANTILAL PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

reassessment itself is quashed, all other issues on merits of the additions, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic and infructuous. 27. Before parting, we would like to mention that sanction for issue of notice under section 151 is in accordance with law, as the JCIT has gone through the facts and then approved it, hence there

RINAMKUMAR A. SHAH,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri Ram Lal Negi & Shri O. P. Meena

133 (6) of to the bank during the course of assessment proceedings under consideration. This fact establish that the AO did not even have the details of cash deposits at the time of reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the notice under section 148 has been issued for making roving inquiry is without any reason to believe that there was escapement

ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), SURAT vs. SHRI PRAVINBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) I.T.O., Shri Pravinbhai Manubhai Patel, Ward 3(2)(2), 311, Mohandeep Society, Behind Vs. Surat. Haridarshan Society, Ved Road, Surat. Pan No. Aiipp 4526 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6) of the Act. Further the enquiry was made in the original assessment and no addition was made in the closing stock of the assessee. However, if the Assessing officer is of the 7 ITO Vs Sh. Pravinbhai Manubhai Patel opinion that the purchases as per separate bills issued on 31/3/2010 were not consumed but represent the stock

SHRI ASHISH NATVARLAL VASHI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3522/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Ashish Natvarlal Vashi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tolat Falia, At & Post. Kaccholi, Navsari. Taluka Gandevi, Dist: Navsari, Navsari - 396370. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abypv5202C (Assessee) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings is a legal issue which goes to the root of the matter and no further inquiry is needed for deciding the said legal issue as all facts are already on record, hence we admit the said additional ground of appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 6. Facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly

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

VIJAYKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections

NIKUNJKUMAR D. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections

SANMUKHLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections

JIGNESHKUMAR S. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections