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)

69C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 as unexplained expenditure. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has not raised the technical issue of reopening the assessment under section

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)

69C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 as unexplained expenditure. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has not raised the technical issue of reopening the assessment under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL PUKHRAJ JAIN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. During the assessment stage assessee did not file return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act but he filed reply in the course of assessment proceedings stating to treat original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, as the return of income field

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, ADAJAN vs. ABHISHEK NAVNIT DOSHI , MAHIDHARPURA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ito, Abhishek Navnit Doshi, 405, Income Tax Office, Anavil 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Vs. Jin Shanti Bldg. Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003. Surat-395009. Pan No. Afhpd 0064 M Appellant Respondent

69C of Income tax Act. d) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. d) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. d) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the judgment of Calcutta CIT(A) has erred

M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

69C of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,79,99,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya

MANISH BHOGILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.687/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manish Bhogilal Shah The Income Tax Officer-3 बनाम/ 6/B, Crown Mansion Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Ground Floor Forjeet Street, Cross Lane, Mumbai – 400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqps 6699 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08 /12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Manish Bhogilal Shah Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

reassessment proceeding have not been fulfilled. 6. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.5100000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that the appellant had no transaction with Shripal Vora and nothing is credited

SHRI VIMALCHAND JAIN,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result the ground No

reassessment proceeding if no addition was made on ground which was mentioned in reason recorded for reopening under section 148. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming and enhancing the disallowance of so called purchases amount Rs.12,26,43,063/- without considering the facts that assessee is a commission

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(7),, SURAT vs. SHRI DIPAK BANWARILAL AGARWAL,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2932 & 3277/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 1. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, V. 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, 2(3)(7), Mahidarpura Surat Surat 2. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, Pan:Afppa6178M 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, Mahidarpura Surat 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(7), Pan:Afppa6178M Surat अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment could not be held unjustified. 11. In the light of ratio as laid down by above discussed judgements and that the AO has in his possession a credible information that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment hence proceedings u/s.147 read with section 148 of the Act has been correctly initiated. Therefore, the contention and arguments raised

DIPAK BANWARILAL AGARWAL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(3)(7),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2932 & 3277/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 1. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, V. 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, 2(3)(7), Mahidarpura Surat Surat 2. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, Pan:Afppa6178M 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, Mahidarpura Surat 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(7), Pan:Afppa6178M Surat अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment could not be held unjustified. 11. In the light of ratio as laid down by above discussed judgements and that the AO has in his possession a credible information that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment hence proceedings u/s.147 read with section 148 of the Act has been correctly initiated. Therefore, the contention and arguments raised

SHRI YOGENDRARAJ U.SINGHVI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2926/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, V. Income Tax Officer, Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946-B, Ward- 2(3)(8), Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat Aayakar Bhavan Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.79/Ahd/2017: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, V. Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, Ward- 2(3)(8), Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946- Aayakar Bhavan Surat B, Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri S.R. Meena, Sr. D.R. राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By 24.07.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 25.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment could not be held unjustified. 11. In the light of ratio as laid down by above discussed judgements and that the AO has in his possession a credible information that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment hence proceedings u/s.147 read with section 148 Page 16 of 24 Yogendraraj U Singhvi v. ITO 2(3)(8)/I.T.A. No.2926/AHD/2016/A.Y.07-08 & I.T.A.No

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI YOGENDRARAJ U. SINGHVI,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2926/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, V. Income Tax Officer, Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946-B, Ward- 2(3)(8), Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat Aayakar Bhavan Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.79/Ahd/2017: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, V. Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, Ward- 2(3)(8), Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946- Aayakar Bhavan Surat B, Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri S.R. Meena, Sr. D.R. राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By 24.07.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 25.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment could not be held unjustified. 11. In the light of ratio as laid down by above discussed judgements and that the AO has in his possession a credible information that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment hence proceedings u/s.147 read with section 148 Page 16 of 24 Yogendraraj U Singhvi v. ITO 2(3)(8)/I.T.A. No.2926/AHD/2016/A.Y.07-08 & I.T.A.No

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7),, SURAT vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR PUKHRAJ RANKA,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.291/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Jitendra Pukhraj Ranka, Surat. Prop Of M/S P Jitendra & Co., 304/A, Sumangal Appt., Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpj0571F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-I/11694/2018-19 Dated 27.03.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 23.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Quashing Reopened Assessment Proceedings For Ay 2008-09. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate Decision Of Larger Bench Of Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court In The Case Of A.L.A Firm Vs Cit, 189 (1991) Itr 285, Whereas The Hon'Ble High Court Has Held That The Jurisdiction Of The Ito To Reassess Income Arises If He Has Reassessed Based On Specific & Relevant Information Coming Into His

reassessed based on specific and relevant information coming into his ITA.291/SRT/2019/AY.2008-09 Jitendra Kumar Pukhraj possession subsequent to the previous concluded assessment, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

reassessment proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed under Section 147 of the Act are satisfied. 23. In fact, in three recent judgments; the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the reopening on similar facts. The case is squarely covered against the assessee by these judgments which are: • Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO 366 ITR 186 (Guj) • Peass Industrial Engineers

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

reassessment proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed under Section 147 of the Act are satisfied. 23. In fact, in three recent judgments; the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the reopening on similar facts. The case is squarely covered against the assessee by these judgments which are: • Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO 366 ITR 186 (Guj) • Peass Industrial Engineers

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

reassessment proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed under Section 147 of the Act are satisfied. 23. In fact, in three recent judgments; the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the reopening on similar facts. The case is squarely covered against the assessee by these judgments which are: • Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO 366 ITR 186 (Guj) • Peass Industrial Engineers

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

reassessment proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed under Section 147 of the Act are satisfied. 23. In fact, in three recent judgments; the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the reopening on similar facts. The case is squarely covered against the assessee by these judgments which are: • Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO 366 ITR 186 (Guj) • Peass Industrial Engineers

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

sections": ["147", "148", "68", "69C", "10(38)"], "issues": "Whether the addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain treated as unexplained cash credit was justified, and whether the reassessment

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

reassessment scheme, it is safely concluded that from 29th March 2022 the show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) should have been issued only by the National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC") and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ("JAO") Therefore, show cause notice issued by any authority other than NFAC is liable to be quashed. The reliance is placed