THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. SMT. FALGUNI SANDIPKUMAR NAIK, SURAT

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 19, 20 & Ita 659/Srt/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court)

2. Ashok 1002959 2959 Yes - Yes 08/06/2018 23/03/2012 Enterprise (Prop. Prakashchandra M Modi) 3. Bhurabhai R 613469 33469 Yes Yes Yes 22/05/2018 07/10/2011 Patel 4. Divyesh Kantilal 527781 27781 Yes Yes Yes 17/05/2018 14/10/2011 5. Harshil Impex 1200000 - Yes - Yes 28/05/2018 22/03/2012 (Prop. Anil B. Gandhi) 6. Hemabhai 645200 35200 Yes Yes Yes 25/05/2018 07/10/2011 7. Khushi Gems

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

2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III ought not to have upheld addition of Rs.1426541/- towards estimated gross profit by rejecting books of accounts and Rs.12513000/- towards unexplained cash credit. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III has erred in not considering the facts of the case submitted to the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III ought not to have upheld addition of Rs.1426541/- towards estimated gross profit by rejecting books of accounts and Rs.12513000/- towards unexplained cash credit. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III has erred in not considering the facts of the case submitted to the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

BAKER ABDULAZIZ NORAT,PANOLI, BHARUCH, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH, BHARUCH, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1232/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Baker Abdulaziz Norat, Vs. Ito, 107, Panoli Travels, Station Road, Ward – 1(1), Panoli, Bharuch – 394115 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akepn7411Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms Vidhi Pandya, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

2. That On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in imposing penalty of Rs.11,00,122/- based on cash deposits in credits cards issued by banks which cannot be regarded as books of accounts for the purpose of section 68 as held in CIT, Poona v. Bhaichand

SHRI PRAVINBHAI GHUSABHAI SINGALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

2. Even otherwise, the assessing officer has erred in levying penalty by attracting both the limbs i.e. for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. 3. Even otherwise, the assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty in the assessment order on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levying the penalty ultimately on both the grounds

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

68 11,802.94 60,14,350 2013-14 33 5,715.12 32,39,123 Total 249 44,328.29 2,21,59,393 On perusal of details submitted by the assessee it is observed that the average area of each plot works out to 212.91 sq. yard. The working is shown as under - Total are of Plots Area of Each Plot

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

68 11,802.94 60,14,350 2013-14 33 5,715.12 32,39,123 Total 249 44,328.29 2,21,59,393 On perusal of details submitted by the assessee it is observed that the average area of each plot works out to 212.91 sq. yard. The working is shown as under - Total are of Plots Area of Each Plot

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

68 11,802.94 60,14,350 2013-14 33 5,715.12 32,39,123 Total 249 44,328.29 2,21,59,393 On perusal of details submitted by the assessee it is observed that the average area of each plot works out to 212.91 sq. yard. The working is shown as under - Total are of Plots Area of Each Plot

SHRI JERAMBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI THESIA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1574/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jerambhai Parsottambhai V The Deputy Commissioner Thesia, A-17, Vithal Nagar, S Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat. Hirabaug, Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aampt 5791 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

249 ITR 125) wherein it was held that the provisions of section 68 permitting the Assessing Officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income are enabling provisions for making certain additions, where there is failure by the assessee to give an explanation or where the explanation is not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer However, the addition made

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT vs. M/S. RAJLAXMI INFRA, SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Rajlaxmi Infra Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep Soc, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 Pan No. Aaofr 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

2 Rajlaxmi Infra Rs.10.00 lakh and Manish B. Shah proprietor of Navkar Auto Glass of Rs.25.00 lakh respectively. In order to verify the genuineness of unsecured loan, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to all four creditors (parties). The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was received from such lenders. The assessee was asked

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

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

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were