DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

68 therefore, the disallowance of consequence interests is also affirm. This ground No.6 of Revenue is dismissed. 16. In the result, Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No.01/SRT/2021 is dismissed. IT(SS)A No.09/SRT/2020 (for A.Y.2014-15) 17. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

section 68 - Assessee furnished some particulars, but details of parties as well as amount of alleged creditors under various heads were not furnished - Whether in these circumstances, assessing authority had been very reasonable in treating only 10 per cent of total advances as unexplained cash credit - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of revenue]". (B). In another case, reported

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

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) while passing the assessment order. The show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act was served upon the assessee. The Assessing 2 Sh.Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Officer recorded that neither the assessee appeared nor filed any written explanation. The Assessing Officer held

SHRI VIJAY KANAIYALAL SAVANI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

130/- under Section 68 of the Act while passing assessment order dated 27/01/2016 under Section 143(3) r.w.s

SHRI VIJAY KANAIYALAL SAVANI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

130/- under Section 68 of the Act while passing assessment order dated 27/01/2016 under Section 143(3) r.w.s

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

130 (Ahd.) 10. The ld. Senior Counsel submits that inadequacy of enquiry cannot be a ground for proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, otherwise it will be an endless process. To support his view, the ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following case laws: (i) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (ii) CIT Vs Anil

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

130/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown agricultural income which is abnormally higher comparative to earlier years. Further the agricultural income shown by the assessee is not supported by documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer also compared the agricultural income with subsequent financial years. The assessee

SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Tulsibhai Bhagwanbhai The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Patel, Majura Gate, Surat. Vs. 9-10, Kasturba Nagar Society, Nr. Baroda Pristage, Varachha Road, Surat. Also At C/O Sh. Ashwin Parekh & Co 401-404, Rajhans Banista, Behind Ram Chowk Temple , Gdod Dhod Road, Suart E-Mail: Akparekh_1989@Yahoo.Co.In Pan : Abrpp 1239 Q Appellant Respondent

130/- by making major addition under section 40A(2)(b) of Rs.11,24,900/- and under section 68

RAJESHBHAI D. DUNGARANI (HUF),SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal as framed by me is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rajeshbhai D Dungarani (Huf), I.T.O., 15-A, Sundaram Park Society, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Dabholi Road, Surat-395004 Surat. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aakhr 4970 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

130 taxmann.com 403. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that while considering the application of condonation of delay, if the delay is not very long, the Bench may adopt a pragmatic approach. To support such view, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shreeji Prints

NEELU MAHANSARIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Neelu Mahansaria Income Tax Officer, 304, Green Park Apartment, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat Vs City Light Road, Nr. Corner Point Complex, Surat-395007 Pan No: Adbpm 2707 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of commission payment @ 2% of LTCG thereby made further addition of Rs. 30,190/- while passing the assessment order on 28.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed detailed written submission. The NFAC

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. WESTERN INDIA COSTRUCTION,, DAMAN

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

130 Nayar Sureshkumar 62,10,756 13,14,500 7,45,291 1,00,000 11,30,823 13,10,011 81,91,359 Nayar Total 1,27,50,061 24,56,000 15,30,007 2,00,000 22,61,646 24,73,225 1,67,24,489 Opening balance of current year is verified with assessee's return

SACHINKUMAR RAJUBHAI PRANCHVANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

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

section 68 of the Act.\n4) Both lower authorities erred in levying tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.\n5) The Assessing officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D\nof the Act.\n6) Without prejudice, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in calculating the\ntax of the Appellant as per the higher rate of tax prescribed

K. N. DIAMOND,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

130 (Ahd)  Minal Shah vs. PCIT 57 CCH 140) (Ahd) 10. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that though the assessing officer made adequate inquiry, yet inadequacy of inquiry by Assessing Officer cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. To support of his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following decision

LABDHI JEWELLERD PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

130 (Ahd)  Minal Shah vs. PCIT 57 CCH 140) (Ahd) 10. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that though the assessing officer made adequate inquiry, yet inadequacy of inquiry by Assessing Officer cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. To support of his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following decision

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68, 69, 69B and 69C deem for the purpose of assessment was injected for the purpose of penalty by operation of a deemed provision. A proviso was added to new Explanation. It concerns cases where the assessee offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate. Consequentially, the provision is intended to save such amount from imposition of penalty

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) (1),, SURAT vs. ANUSHREE SAREES PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue ( In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1680 To 1682/Ahd/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.61/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. M/S. Anushree Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Surat. D-5409, Raghukul Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagca5772J (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

130 Deemed Total Income u/s 115JB 58,65,676 8.1 The ground no. 1 of the appeal is regarding rejection of books of accounts. On detailed perusal of the assessment order, it is found that the Id assessing officer has not given a categorical finding that he is rejecting books of accounts. Even though in the discussions made in para

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) (1),, SURAT vs. ANUSHREE SAREES PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue ( In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1680 To 1682/Ahd/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.61/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. M/S. Anushree Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Surat. D-5409, Raghukul Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagca5772J (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

130 Deemed Total Income u/s 115JB 58,65,676 8.1 The ground no. 1 of the appeal is regarding rejection of books of accounts. On detailed perusal of the assessment order, it is found that the Id assessing officer has not given a categorical finding that he is rejecting books of accounts. Even though in the discussions made in para

DY. C.I.T.CIR., 1(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S ANUSHREE SAREES PVT.LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue ( In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1680 To 1682/Ahd/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.61/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. M/S. Anushree Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Surat. D-5409, Raghukul Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagca5772J (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

130 Deemed Total Income u/s 115JB 58,65,676 8.1 The ground no. 1 of the appeal is regarding rejection of books of accounts. On detailed perusal of the assessment order, it is found that the Id assessing officer has not given a categorical finding that he is rejecting books of accounts. Even though in the discussions made in para