SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after Suresh B Desai Vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, Surat /ITA No’s.1720 & 1721/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 & 12-13 Page

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

c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order

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

c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order

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

c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order

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

c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order

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

c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order

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

c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order

M/S. BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD -1, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961( ITA No.1581/AHD/2013 (AY 13-14)& M/s Base Inds. Ltd. ‘the Act’). In ITA No.2422/AHD/2016 the assessee challenged the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus,certain facts in both the appeals are common, therefore, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid

JAYANTIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ito, New Delhi, 283, Padm Punj, Siddhanth Bharuch-392001. Nagar Soceity, Gujarat Housing Vs. Board, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aebpp 3770 P Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 06/10/2025 Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act were completed on 12.12.2019, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹5,25,000/- representing unexplained cash deposits. The Assessing Officer simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WASRD-3(3)(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”).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, dated 30.03.2015 for assessment order 2012-13, therefore the Assessing Officer should not have recorded reasons again on the same

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”).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, dated 30.03.2015 for assessment order 2012-13, therefore the Assessing Officer should not have recorded reasons again on the same

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since facts are same, with consent of the parties, both appeals were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The quantum appeal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 is treated as “lead” case. 1 ITA Nos.612 & 613/SRT/2025/AY 2007-08 Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd. 2. The grounds of appeal

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since facts are same, with consent of the parties, both appeals were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The quantum appeal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 is treated as “lead” case. 1 ITA Nos.612 & 613/SRT/2025/AY 2007-08 Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd. 2. The grounds of appeal

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed