DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 68 of the Act in a summary manner by observing that the Assessing Officer has made substantive addition in AY.2010-11 and the issue has been dealt in while deciding the appeal for the said year, wherein the CIT(A), has deleted such addition made on substantive basis on technical ground.” 41. Brief facts qua the issue are that

SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act was brought w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and is not retrospective as held by Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 1613 of 2014] (Mum HC) and PCIT vs. Apeak Infotech – [2017] 397 ITR 148 (Bombay) ITA No.435/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Sejal Jewellers

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

section 69A is not valid in law. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue.” 11. The ld Counsel also argued that during demonetization period, the purchase and sale of the assessee was normal. During demonetization period the assessee`s sales was less as compared to previous month`s sales and all expenses of the assessee were normal

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

section 69A is not valid in law. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue.” 11. The ld Counsel also argued that during demonetization period, the purchase and sale of the assessee was normal. During demonetization period the assessee`s sales was less as compared to previous month`s sales and all expenses of the assessee were normal

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

section 69A is not valid in law. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue.” 11. The ld Counsel also argued that during demonetization period, the purchase and sale of the assessee was normal. During demonetization period the assessee`s sales was less as compared to previous month`s sales and all expenses of the assessee were normal

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

100/- under section 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3) SURAT vs. MEGA COLLECTIONS PVT LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.311/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. Mega Collections Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 38-39, Kamla Estate, Gitanjali Petrol Pump, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcm3809C

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer observing as follows: “4.12 On perusal of facts, it is noticed that the identity of all the creditors was established

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

68 of the Act of 1961 straight-away merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the sundry creditors was not found genuine. 13. In view of the above reasons, following s. 145(3) the assessing officer should have proceeded under s. 144 and should have followed the procedure of assessment

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

68 of the Act of 1961 straight-away merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the sundry creditors was not found genuine. 13. In view of the above reasons, following s. 145(3) the assessing officer should have proceeded under s. 144 and should have followed the procedure of assessment

SHRI BALAJI J BHAGNURE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Balaji J. Bhagnure Income Tax Officer, 98, Santkrupa Society, In Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Vs Lane Of Mahadev Mandir, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Godadara Devadh Road, Surat-395001 Godadara, Surat-394210 Pan No: Alkpb 8794 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 27.12.2022 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 [For Short To As “Nfac/ Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 26.07.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 11.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Reopening Assessment By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The I.T. Act 1961. Sh. Balaji J Bhagnure 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act.

68 of the Act. The assessee in his submission, submitted that Assessing Officer made reopening on the basis of ITS/AIR data. The assessee submitted that during the relevant period, the assessee was doing labour work on contract basis for M/s Desco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and received an amount of Rs.3,69,441/-, which is evident from the contents of Form

SHRI CHANDUBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI BORAD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chandubhai Parshottambhai Income Tax Officer, Borad, 162, 163, Akshardham Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Vs Society, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Varachha Road, Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No: Ajfpb 2959 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68 of the Act. 4. On other issue of agricultural income, Assessing Officer held that in earlier assessment year, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.1,58,400/-, however, in the current assessment year agricultural income has shown at Rs.4,46,100

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 68 as unexplained credit amounts to double taxation of the same income. The said situation has been upheld in latest Apex Court Judgment of Montage Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2018) 100

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 68 as unexplained credit amounts to double taxation of the same income. The said situation has been upheld in latest Apex Court Judgment of Montage Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2018) 100

DY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2, SURAT vs. M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO., SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 68 of the Act. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that they have already offered Rs. 19,14,740/- which consists of Rs. 15,67,170/- plus (+) Rs. 3,47,570/- in the income by crediting the said amount by P&L account and shown in the return of income. Thus, we affirm

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

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 68 of the Act. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that they have already offered Rs. 19,14,740/- which consists of Rs. 15,67,170/- plus (+) Rs. 3,47,570/- in the income by crediting the said amount by P&L account and shown in the return of income. Thus, we affirm

CHIMANBHAI A. KANTESARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

section 68. No appeal was filed by assessee against addition in quantum assessment, thus, such addition attained finality. No reply to show cause notice was filed by assessee despite repeated show cause issued by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 100

DIVA DIAMONDS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

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

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.128/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), 302, Gokul Building, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Srt/2020 [Arising In Ita No.128/Srt/2020] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Gokul Building, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.313/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Principal Cit-1,Surat 1St 302, Gokul Building, Room No.123, Floor, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has restricted the addition at @ 5% of unverifiable purchases observing as follows: “8.8 In interest of principles of uniformity and consistency the same decision is taken in the instant appeal. The AR has also