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

CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68, there must be existence of books of account hence action of Assessing Officer is not as per law. The assessee again submitted that he has made a sales of grey fabric of Rs. 1.63 crores in A.Y. 2015-16 from following four parties, out of which sales remained unrealized at the year-end; 1. Sanjay Silk Mills

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 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

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 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

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

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)

68 of the Act. ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar 13. Further, a sum of Rs.98,037/- being commission paid @ 2% of the LTCG was also added by the assessing officer, as unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Act. 14. The Assessing Officer also held that tax on the above unaccounted income of Rs.49,99,877/- (Rs.49

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

76,44,750 (15,25,000 old Vekariya sumul dairy Road balance + 61,20,000) Surat. 4 Usha AIHPV9675R 404, Shree Darshan 1,800,000 Vekariya Palace, Lal Darwaja Surat 5 Bhavika ADXPV3371P 3-C, Ashwani appt. 600,000 Vekariya sumul dairy Road Surat. 6 Manisha AHMPV1538K 3-D, Ashwani appt. 600,000 Vekariya sumul dairy Road Surat. 7 Vijay

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

section 68 of the Act, hence, these are being considered together. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Return of 7. Income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.5, 14, 26,940/- which was assessed for the year under consideration. The AO finalized the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) on 31.03.2014 by making disallowance of Rs.4

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

section 68 that there is no addition can be made merely on the basis of presumption. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of AYs 10-11, 14-15, 15-16 & 17-18 Dineshchandra D Koradia, Nagjibhai M Sakariya & Sh. Hareshbhai M Sakariya Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-1 vs. Dharmadev Finance

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

76,66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

76,66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRA CIR.2, SURAT vs. DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

76,66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. M/S. DAGINA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., , SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

76,66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

76,66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

76,66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

76,66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

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, the addition is unlawful and may be deleted. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not considered (dealt upon) the submission made by assessee regarding source of cash found at Mumbai Central Railway station. The assessee claimed that the cash

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, the addition is unlawful and may be deleted. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not considered (dealt upon) the submission made by assessee regarding source of cash found at Mumbai Central Railway station. The assessee claimed that the cash