Govidappa Setty v. ITO

232 ITR 892High Court#14148 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 142(1)Section 142A

Issues it is cited on

section 249(4)(b)section 249(4)section 142asection 249advance taxsection 24reason to believeunexplained investmentsection 151section 142section 271section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Govidappa Setty v. ITO

SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI HUF,PUNE vs. ITO, JALNA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 606/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…TO in ITA No.642/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 and also relied on the judgement passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Govidappa Setty vs. ITO, 232 ITR 892 (Karnataka). 10. Apart from above, Ld. AR also submitted before the bench that quantum addition appeal case on the basis of which impugned penalty is levied has already been remanded back to the file of LD CIT(A) by a coordinate bench of this tribunal in ITA No.2600 & 2601/PUN/2024 vide order dated 14.02.2025 for de novo adjudication on merits of…

SHIVRATAN MOTILALJI RATHI HUF,PUNE vs. ITO, JALNA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 605/PUN/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…TO in ITA No.642/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 and also relied on the judgement passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Govidappa Setty vs. ITO, 232 ITR 892 (Karnataka). 10. Apart from above, Ld. AR also submitted before the bench that quantum addition appeal case on the basis of which impugned penalty is levied has already been remanded back to the file of LD CIT(A) by a coordinate bench of this tribunal in ITA No.2600 & 2601/PUN/2024 vide order dated 14.02.2025 for de novo adjudication on merits of…

SHIVRATAN MOTILALJI RATHI HUF,PUNE vs. ITO, JALNA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 604/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.604/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1. The Appellant Requests Your Honor To Condone The Delay Of 64 Days In Filing The Appeal As The Delay Was Due To Unforeseen Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti SabnisFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.604/PUN/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jalna. HUF, Rathi Rathi and Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. PAN : AAEHR5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.07.2025 : आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed…

SUSHMA HARESH UBALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

…vs. ITO in ITA No.642/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 and also from the judgement passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Govidappa Setty vs. ITO, 232 ITR 892 (Karnataka) wherein under similar circumstances the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to admit the appeal of the asse…

SAHYOGH NAGRI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JALNA vs. ITO WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA

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

ITA 36/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Patsanstha Maryadit, 17/85, Juna Monda Mahesh Nagar, Ambad, Dist. Jalna-431203. Pan : Abmfs8514J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Has Not Furnished Its Return Of Income For The Period Under Consideration. On The Basis Of Information Available With The Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Has Deposited

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

…vs. ITO in ITA No.642/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 and also from the judgement passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Govidappa Setty vs. ITO, 232 ITR 892 (Karnataka) wherein under similar circumstances the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to admit the appeal of the asse…

SAHYOGH NAGRI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA

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

ITA 1670/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1670/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Patsanstha Maryadit, Kasturi 47, Azad Maidan, Near Saibaba Temple, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Abmfs8514J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, Neither Anybody Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant-Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed Despite Due Service Of Notice Of Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

…vs. ITO in ITA No.642/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 and also from the judgement passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Govidappa Setty vs. ITO, 232 ITR 892 (Karnataka) wherein under similar circumstances the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to admit the appeal of the 5 as…

SHRI SAMPAT KACHARU DHAGE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1019/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

…Chaudhari vs. ITO in ITA No.642/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 and the judgement passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Govidappa Setty vs. ITO, 232 ITR 892 (Karnataka), as well as considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication of the appeal on merits of the case after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. LD CIT(A)NFAC shall pass the…