SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

274 of the Act on 13.02.2017. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer held that neither at the time of assessment proceedings nor at the time of penalty proceedings, the assessee could prove that there was no concealment. The Ld. CIT(A),Valsad has also confirmed the addition of Rs.1,43,622/-, and Rs.15,91,100/- made

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 and the 1st condition therein is the Identity of the depositors. In the present case, it is a fact on record that all the said depositors are having PAN and are also filing Income Tax Returns. Further, it is also a fact that the summons u/s. 131 of the Act issued by the AO to these depositors were duly

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 and the 1st condition therein is the Identity of the depositors. In the present case, it is a fact on record that all the said depositors are having PAN and are also filing Income Tax Returns. Further, it is also a fact that the summons u/s. 131 of the Act issued by the AO to these depositors were duly

SMT. PURNIMA SUNIL AGRAWAL,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,VAPI WARD-2,, VAPI

In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court-Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3224/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 902, Orchid Tower, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi. Chharwada Road, Vapi Dist. Valsad-396195. [Pan: Aavpa 0055 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

274 merely on account of cash entries. 12. In the facts of the case, the AO has committed an error of law by adding that amount under s. 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

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

274 merely on account of cash entries. 12. In the facts of the case, the assessing officer has committed an error of law by adding that amount under s. 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

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

274 merely on account of cash entries. 12. In the facts of the case, the assessing officer has committed an error of law by adding that amount under s. 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

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

274 read with section 271(1)(c) levied penalty of Rs. 3,71,643/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 15.09.2014. Aggrieved by the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty vide his consolidated order dated

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

274 read with section 271(1)(c) levied penalty of Rs. 3,71,643/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 15.09.2014. Aggrieved by the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty vide his consolidated order dated

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

274 read with section 271(1)(c) levied penalty of Rs. 3,71,643/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 15.09.2014. Aggrieved by the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty vide his consolidated order dated

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

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

274 of the Act, and the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.” Ground 7: “That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty has been initiated vide notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without any specific charge, hence

SARITABEN RAHUL KAKADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.553/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Saritaben Rahul Kakadia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(3), S.R. Textiles, 59, Vishnu Nagar, Surat. Near Ankur Char Rasta, Varachha, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Clnpk0716K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Surat-3/10420/2016-17 Dated 22.10.2019, Which In Turn Arise Out Of 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”].

68 of the Act, namely identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, therefore penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer should be upheld. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The ground raised by the assessee pertains to levying of penalty to the tune of Rs.4,81,890/-, under section

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 of the Act. The assessing officer initiated penalty for concealment of income. No further appeal was filed by assessee against such addition in quantum assessment. 3. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice under Section 274

SHRI PARESH K. SORATHIYA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2018 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Paresh Sorathiya Income Tax Officer 195, Ambica Nagar No.2, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs Opp. Arogya Kendra, Gate, Surat-395001 Katargam Road, Surat Pan : Axbps 9579 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

274 rws 271(1)(c). The assessing officer recorded that the assessee appeared through his representative and filed reply, no new facts was mentioned in his reply thus, the assessing officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessing officer levied minimum penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded. The assessing

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

68. The said sum shall be deemed to be income of the year under consideration. However, dehors the said provision, it is not possible to state with certainity that the said sum would be concealed income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The past history of the assessee shows that the assessee has not been earning income outside

RAMILABEN KALUBHAI KAKADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia, I.T.O., 62, Mira Nagar, Bhat Ni Wadi, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Varachha Road, Surat-395008. Surat. Pan No. Aippk 2934 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In reply to show cause notice under Section 274

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurpose

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "147", "68", "271(1)(c)", "274", "143(1)", "148", "132", "131", "69A", "251(2)" ], "issues

ACIT, CIR-1(3), SURAT vs. PRAVIN PANNALAL SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 68 comes into operation if any sum is found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee and no satisfactory explanation is offered in respect of the sum so credited." (vii) The Hon'ble Rajkot Bench of ITAT in the case of Asstt. Commissioner 'vs. Radheyshyam Bansal - reported in 68 TTJ 136 - observed: "During the course

SHRI VIMALCHAND JAIN,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result the ground No

68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/- represented alleged purchases from ''bogus suppliers