RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

demonetization year wherein the addition was made under Section 68 of the Act, passed the following order: “7. I have

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

demonetization year wherein the addition was made under Section 68 of the Act, passed the following order: “7. I have

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

demonetization year wherein the addition was made under Section 68 of the Act, passed the following order: “7. I have

CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

demonetization period. Copy of TDS form was furnished. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the assessee requested to delete the addition under Section 68

VISHWAS BUILDERS,OPERA PALACE vs. ACIT, CIR 2(2), SURAT, MAJURAGATE, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vishwas Builders, Acit, Cir 2(2), Laskana Kholvad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Gujarat-395004. Vs. Majuragate, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aakfv 9174 A Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act. 2.6 The Assessing Officer further observ The Assessing Officer further observed that in the event the ed that in the event the assessee succeeded in establishing that the cash was received from assessee succeeded in establishing that the cash was received from assessee succeeded in establishing that the cash was received from buyers, the transaction

HITENDRASINH CHANDRASINH BAKROLA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

demonetization period. The assessee purchased agricultural land during the year under consideration and the property transaction was completed on 02-09-2019. The sale consideration of the property is Rs. 1,25,95,950/- whereas the stamp duty was paid by the assessee of Rs. 6,17,250/-. The assessee filed reply and after taking cognizance of the said reply

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. HINDUSTAN STEEL AND CEMENT, ALTHAN-BHATAR, SURAT

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.266/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hindustan Steel & Cement, Ward - 2(3)(1), Althan-Bhatar, Plot No. 1D, Sai Surat Ashish Society, Althan Bhatar, University Road, Surat - 394201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaefh 5030 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

demonetization as well. The Sales Tax/VAT returns were not revised and the same stand accepted by the State Government. The book results have also been accepted by the AO without pointing out any defect. The ITA No.266/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Hindustan Steel & Cement AO has wrongly applied provisions of section 68

MAGNIFIQUE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Magnifique Gems Private Limited Income Tax Officer, 105 Rajshree Building, Maniyara Ward-1(1)(4) Sheri Na Naka, Surat, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Income Tax Gujarat- 395003 Colony, Athwa, Surat, Gujarat- 395001 Pan No. Aagcm 5160 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-Dr

section 68 of the Act, contending that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the assessee had duly explained the nature and source of the cash deposits. It was submitted that purchases were fully supported by bills, payments were made through banking channels, suppliers had confirmed transactions, and quantitative stock details were furnished and duly tallied with closing stock

SAI PETROLEUM,SURAT vs. PR.CIT, -1, SURAT

In the result, grounds no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.116/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sai Petroleum Principal Commissioner Of 381, Survey No.415, Sachin, Income-Tax-1, Rom 123, Vs Surat-394230 Aayakhar Bhawan, Majura Pan No: Achfs 8318 Q Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ketan S. Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 15.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Ads Made By Ld. Ao As Per Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Sai Petroleum I. Addition U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act Amounting To Rs.13,65,241 As Unreconciled Cash Deposited In Bank Accounted As Cash Sales During Demonetization Period. Ii. Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.10,00,000 Received From Debtors As Unaccounted Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period.

68 of the Act amounting to Rs.10,00,000 received from debtors as unaccounted cash deposited in bank during demonetization period. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts by not taking into consideration and giving judgment on ground of appeal no. 3 that. “The Ld. AO has erred by duplication

ANKIT AGRAWAL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

68 and taxed\nthe same under section 115BBE. Before, Id CIT(A), the assessee again sought\nadjournment on two occasions, which was allowed. However, on third\noccasion, the assessee neither filed his submissions nor sought adjournment.\nThe Id CIT(A) took his view that the assessee is not interested in pursuing\nhis appeal. On careful consideration of facts

PARESHBHAI NATVARLAL SHAH,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1007/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshbhai Natvarlal Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ 6-B, Sainath Society, Moroli Navsari-396 445 Vs. Bazar, Navsari-396 436 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adfps 0044 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Patel, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025

68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of same income. The Mumbai Tribunal in case of R.S. Diamond India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITA No.1007/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Pareshbhai N Shah ACIT, 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum-Trib) held that where the assessee deposited cash during demonetization period, since deposit was made from cash balance available in the books

YOGESHKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Yogeshkumar Babubhai Patel, I.T.O., 48, Rajput Faliya, Kumbhariya Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Gam, Punagam, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Anmpp 0363 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68 of the Act. 2 Yogeshkumar Babubhai Patel Vs ITO 3. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has made deposit of Rs. 10,00,500/- during demonetization

BALUBHAI BRIJBHUKHANDAS CHOKSI,NA vs. ARIVS.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhai Brijbhukhandas Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-Valsad, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Choksi, Mota Bazar, Vs. Navsari-396445 Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifb 9804 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

demonetization period. The whole cash deposit of Rs.59,23,500/- (After giving benefit of Rs.12,50,000/- declared under PMGKY) remained unexplained which should have been charged by applying tax rate u/s 115BBE of the Act, but the AO has wrongly accepted the G.P. @ 17.54% declared by the assessee which is against the interest of Revenue. 5. According to Section

DEVNGI JEWELLWERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Devngi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 109 -110, Shreyas Diamond Centre, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd3227A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

demonetization. The CIT(A) had also issued questionnaire u/s 250(4) of the Act, which was not satisfactorily explained. The impossibility of conduct by the assessee has not been satisfactorily explained. The VAT return does not put fetters on the AO to make addition, if the conditions of section 68

A.M. SUPPLIERS (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) A.M. Suppliers (P) Ltd., I.T.O., Shop No. 1, Rajhans Building, Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002. Surat. Pan No. Aadca 3136 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

demonetization period in the HDFC Bank and Bank of Baroda as discussed in para 6 of the assessment order. 2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming invocation of provisions of Section 68

SAMIR YOGENDRABHAI PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 33,88,800/- in his bank accounts which includes Rs. 22,62,500/- in SBN. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27/12/2019 by making addition of Rs. 1.03 lacs under Section 68

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

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

section 68 of the Act and taxed at higher rate under 115BBE of the Act, which resulted into loss of revenue. But the learned PCIT, valsad has overlooked the fact that if the AO adopts one of the possible legal views after inquiry, the order cannot be termed as "Erroneous". 9. The Learned PCIT, Valsad has erred in placing reliance

RANJANBEN AJITENDRA PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

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

section 68 of the Act and taxed at higher rate under 115BBE of the Act, which resulted into loss of revenue. But the learned PCIT, valsad has overlooked the fact that if the AO adopts one of the possible legal views after inquiry, the order cannot be termed as "Erroneous". 9. The Learned PCIT, Valsad has erred in placing reliance