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)

reassess the income by reopening the assessment are present, same may not be permitted in cases where the original assessment framed by the Assessing Officer has failed on any technical ground, such as in the present case i.e. want of service of notice under section 143(2). Once the original assessment is ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex

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)

reassess the income by reopening the assessment are present, same may not be permitted in cases where the original assessment framed by the Assessing Officer has failed on any technical ground, such as in the present case i.e. want of service of notice under section 143(2). Once the original assessment is ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex

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)

reassess the income by reopening the assessment are present, same may not be permitted in cases where the original assessment framed by the Assessing Officer has failed on any technical ground, such as in the present case i.e. want of service of notice under section 143(2). Once the original assessment is ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex

ANTIQUE EXIM PVT LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills, purchase bills, sale bills, Ledge/confirmation of account, stock register, Quantity tally, bank statements and I.T. acknowledgement receipts of disputed parties had been filed on record; b) The entire payments had been made/received only through banking channel by A/c payee cheques/RTGS

SAFFRON GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills, purchase bills, sale bills, Ledge/confirmation of account, stock register, Quantity tally, bank statements and I.T. acknowledgement receipts of disputed parties had been filed on record; b) The entire payments had been made/received only through banking channel by A/c payee cheques/RTGS

MARUDHAR DIAMOND PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills, purchase bills, sale bills, Ledge/confirmation of account, stock register, Quantity tally, bank statements and I.T. acknowledgement receipts of disputed parties had been filed on record; b) The entire payments had been made/received only through banking channel by A/c payee cheques/RTGS

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT vs. M/S. SAFFRON GEMS PVT. LTD., , SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills, purchase bills, sale bills, Ledge/confirmation of account, stock register, Quantity tally, bank statements and I.T. acknowledgement receipts of disputed parties had been filed on record; b) The entire payments had been made/received only through banking channel by A/c payee cheques/RTGS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. MARUDHAR DIAMOND PVT LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills, purchase bills, sale bills, Ledge/confirmation of account, stock register, Quantity tally, bank statements and I.T. acknowledgement receipts of disputed parties had been filed on record; b) The entire payments had been made/received only through banking channel by A/c payee cheques/RTGS

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-3, SURAT vs. M/S. ANTIQUE EXIM PVT. LTD., , SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills, purchase bills, sale bills, Ledge/confirmation of account, stock register, Quantity tally, bank statements and I.T. acknowledgement receipts of disputed parties had been filed on record; b) The entire payments had been made/received only through banking channel by A/c payee cheques/RTGS

NOBAL JEWELS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills, purchase bills, sale bills, Ledge/confirmation of account, stock register, Quantity tally, bank statements and I.T. acknowledgement receipts of disputed parties had been filed on record; b) The entire payments had been made/received only through banking channel by A/c payee cheques/RTGS

ASST. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, SURAT vs. M/S. NOBAL JEWELS PVT. LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills, purchase bills, sale bills, Ledge/confirmation of account, stock register, Quantity tally, bank statements and I.T. acknowledgement receipts of disputed parties had been filed on record; b) The entire payments had been made/received only through banking channel by A/c payee cheques/RTGS

BHAKTIKISHOREDAS DHARMTANYADASJI SWAMI,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhaktikishoredas I.T.O., Dharmtanyadasji Swami, Ward-1, Vs. Shri Swaminarayan Seva Trust, Vapi. Swaminarayan Gurukul, Gurukul Road, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat India-396191. Pan No. Bmgps 5746 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1,31,500/-. The assessee requested for reasons recorded. The Assessing Officer recorded that the reasons recorded was provided to the assessee vide his letter dated 24/04/2018. 7. The assessee objected against reopening. The objection of assessee was recorded in para 2 of assessment order. In the objection, the assessee objected that case of A.Y. 2009-10 was also reopened

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.

reassessment under section 147 of the Act cannot be entertained and it is hereby rejected. Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat 21. We Note that on merit, the assessee`s case is squarely covered by the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary, in ITA No. 1152/AHD/2017, dated

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.

reassessment under section 147 of the Act cannot be entertained and it is hereby rejected. Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat 21. We Note that on merit, the assessee`s case is squarely covered by the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary, in ITA No. 1152/AHD/2017, dated

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.

reassessment under section 147 of the Act cannot be entertained and it is hereby rejected. Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat 21. We Note that on merit, the assessee`s case is squarely covered by the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary, in ITA No. 1152/AHD/2017, dated

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.

reassessment under section 147 of the Act cannot be entertained and it is hereby rejected. Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat 21. We Note that on merit, the assessee`s case is squarely covered by the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary, in ITA No. 1152/AHD/2017, dated

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.

reassessment under section 147 of the Act cannot be entertained and it is hereby rejected. Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat 21. We Note that on merit, the assessee`s case is squarely covered by the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary, in ITA No. 1152/AHD/2017, dated

BHIKHUBHAI KESHAVBHAI MISTRY,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhikhubhai Keshavbhai Mistry, I.T.O., 1, Kabirgam, Valiya, Ankleshwar, Ward-1(5), Vs. Bharuch, Gujarat-393135. Bharuch. Pan No. Apnpm 1810 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1) That CIT(A) erred that as in confirming addition of Rs. 10,60,330/- (2) That CIT(A) erred in not considering opening cash balance accumulated from agricultural income and past savings. (3) That the addition confirmed by CIT(A) of Rs. 10,60,330/- may kindly be deleted. (4) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary