GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

reassessment proceedings were initiated after a period of four years, however there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts of making the assessment and that is why, the original assessment was framed by making estimated addition under section 144 of the Act. 15. On merits, Ld. DR submitted that assessee

BALMUKUND M VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

145(2) of the Income Tax Act, and since the ITA Nos. 204 &205/SRT/2019 Balmukund M. Vaishnav assessee failed to explain that the purchases worth Rs.28,81,47,552/- are genuine purchases therefore appropriate addition on account of bogus purchase of Rs.28,81,47,552/- u/s 69C of the Act was made by the assessing officer. 12. Aggrieved

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

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 24.03.2023. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “The appellant prefers an appeal against an order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 30.08.2024 on following amongst other grounds, each of which are without prejudice

SANJAYKUMAR DEVKISHAN PANWAR,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

reassessment proceedings are bad in law and hence it should be quashed. 13. In respect of additional grounds raised by the assessee, the Ld. Counsel submitted that books of accounts were rejected by the Assessing Officer without bringing out any defect in the books of accounts. Therefore, rejection of books of accounts under section 145

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT, SURAT vs. SANJAYKUMAR DEVKISHAN PANWAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

reassessment proceedings are bad in law and hence it should be quashed. 13. In respect of additional grounds raised by the assessee, the Ld. Counsel submitted that books of accounts were rejected by the Assessing Officer without bringing out any defect in the books of accounts. Therefore, rejection of books of accounts under section 145

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)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience

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)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience

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)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience

NAZAR IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(3), SURAT (CURRENT JURISDICTION), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazar Impex Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395 003 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccn3603R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’), Dated 26.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeals Are As Under: “1. Ground 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of Income Tax, Act 1961 Without Pointing Out Any Defect In Books Of Account & Even The Return Income On The Basis Of Books Of Account Were Also Not Disputed.

section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the issue which is subject matter of appeal cannot be considered again in reassessment proceeding. 7. Ground 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that jewellery valued at Rs. 9,85,63,946/- was found during GST search. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee admitted that such jewellery was manufactured on job work basis. The Assessing Officer observed that the average market rate of job work in jewellery business is around 12%. Considering that the jewellery involved

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that jewellery valued at Rs. 9,85,63,946/- was found during GST search. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee admitted that such jewellery was manufactured on job work basis. The Assessing Officer observed that the average market rate of job work in jewellery business is around 12%. Considering that the jewellery involved

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that jewellery valued at Rs. 9,85,63,946/- was found during GST search. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee admitted that such jewellery was manufactured on job work basis. The Assessing Officer observed that the average market rate of job work in jewellery business is around 12%. Considering that the jewellery involved

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

145(3) of the Act. Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat Therefore, assessing officer noted that in assessee`s case, the assessee has taken the plea that its purchases from the above parties were genuine as had made payment through account payee cheques. In this regard, it would be necessary to note that this argument

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

145(3) of the Act. Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat Therefore, assessing officer noted that in assessee`s case, the assessee has taken the plea that its purchases from the above parties were genuine as had made payment through account payee cheques. In this regard, it would be necessary to note that this argument

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

145(3) of the Act. Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat Therefore, assessing officer noted that in assessee`s case, the assessee has taken the plea that its purchases from the above parties were genuine as had made payment through account payee cheques. In this regard, it would be necessary to note that this argument

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

145(3) of the Act. Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat Therefore, assessing officer noted that in assessee`s case, the assessee has taken the plea that its purchases from the above parties were genuine as had made payment through account payee cheques. In this regard, it would be necessary to note that this argument

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

145(3) of the Act. Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat Therefore, assessing officer noted that in assessee`s case, the assessee has taken the plea that its purchases from the above parties were genuine as had made payment through account payee cheques. In this regard, it would be necessary to note that this argument

AJAY KALISHCHANDRA BOHRA,DAMAN vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 549/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Ajay Kalishchandra Bohra Principal Commissioner Of Income- 1, Plot No.22B, Daman Industrial Tax, Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak बनाम Estate, Somnath Road, Dabhel, Arcade, Shantinagar, Tithal Road, Vs Daman-396 215 Valsad-396 001 [Pan : Ackpb 2567 R] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

reassessment order was passed in both the assessment years. However, show cause notice issued under section 263 was issued only in respect of assessment year 2017-18 only and that similar re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 2016-17 was not revised. The assessee in response to show cause notice field detailed reply. The reply of assessee is duly scanned