DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, 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.

34. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that according to section 68

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.

34. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that according to section 68

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

34. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that according to section 68

SHRI RAMJI V. JOYSHAR,,VALSAD vs. THE PR. CIT, VALSAD,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.946/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Ramji V. Joyshar, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Kalpvruksh, Palli Hill-3, ‘E’ Road, Tithal Road, Valsad. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacy1854F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surji Chheda, Ar Revenue By : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

68 should be properly investigated. Since, in the present case, besides availability of only part details, the assessee did not furnish the documents in support of sources of funds, and the AO also did not ask for further details/question about the sources of funds, the order of the AO became defective/erroneous on account of absence of any inquiry

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

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

section 68 of the Act made merely on the basis of suspicion, presumptions and probability of preponderance without any direct evidence to prove the transactions as non-genuine or sham or demonstrating assessee's involvement in any kind of manipulation, cannot be made. Thus, the assessee has explained and submitted evidences to prove identity, nature and source

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

section 68 of the Act made merely on the basis of suspicion, presumptions and probability of preponderance without any direct evidence to prove the transactions as non-genuine or sham or demonstrating assessee's involvement in any kind of manipulation, cannot be made. Thus, the assessee has explained and submitted evidences to prove identity, nature and source

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

section 68 of the Act made merely on the basis of suspicion, presumptions and probability of preponderance without any direct evidence to prove the transactions as non-genuine or sham or demonstrating assessee's involvement in any kind of manipulation, cannot be made. Thus, the assessee has explained and submitted evidences to prove identity, nature and source

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68 of the Act made merely on the basis of suspicion, presumptions and probability of preponderance without any direct evidence to prove the transactions as non-genuine or sham or demonstrating assessee's involvement in any kind of manipulation, cannot be made. Thus, the assessee has explained and submitted evidences to prove identity, nature and source

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

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

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

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

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

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

68 of the Act. It is also noted that in spite of repeated request, the Ld. Assessing Officer did not provide opportunity to cross examine the concerned persons and even the relevant information and allegation, if any, made therein, which has been used against the assessee, was not provided to the assessee. At this stage, we add here that mere

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

68 of the Act. It is also noted that in spite of repeated request, the Ld. Assessing Officer did not provide opportunity to cross examine the concerned persons and even the relevant information and allegation, if any, made therein, which has been used against the assessee, was not provided to the assessee. At this stage, we add here that mere

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 on account of unexplained cash deposits is sustainable. deposits is sustainable. 5.1 The Assessing Officer observed deposit of the cash of The Assessing Officer observed deposit of the cash of The Assessing Officer observed deposit of the cash of maintained by the Rs.1,56,00,000/- in the in the two bank accounts main assessee firm

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. MERRYGOLD GEMS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2020 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd., U-20, Jolly Square, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Vs Ram Chowk, Ghod Dod Road, Room No.114, 1St Floor, Surat-395007 Aaykar Bhavan, Pan No. Aaicm 7912 L Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68 cannot be invoked. We find the ld AR for the assessee filed following summary of impugned deposits and refunds; Sr. Details of payers Details of trade advance received Details of trade advance repaid Repayment No. within Name Date of receipt Amount received Date of Amount Repaid payment 1. M/s Anushul Gems Pvt. 20/08/2015

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

34. We note that addition under section 68 of the Act made merely on the basis of suspicion, presumptions

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J B SYNTEX 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.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

68 of the Act. 26. On appeal, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition, therefore Revenue is in appeal before us. Learned DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand, ld Counsel