KESARAM CHATARARAMJI CHOUDHARY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(21)(1), MUMBAI

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 Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization. Further, assessee has also deposited cash of Rs. 5,10,000/ 5,10,000/- other than the period of demonetisation in his accounts amounting other than the period of demonetisation in his accounts amounting and there are other credits to the tune of Rs. 7,41,401/- (Total Credit (Total Credit- Rs. 26,51,401/- and there are other

SAPHALE PARISAR BIGARSHETI , SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, SAPHALE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saphaleparisarbigarshetisahkaripatsansthamaryadit, Pr. Cit-1, Saphale, Ashar It Vs. Ambika Nagar, Ambika Rice Mill Compound, Park, 6Th Tandulwadi Road, Umbarpada, Saphale East, Dist Floor, Palghar-401 102. Income Tax Office, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400604. Pan No. Aafas 4609 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 Order

delay is accordingly condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of t Briefly stated, facts of the case are that for the year under he case are that for the year under consideration no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. consideration no regular return of income was filed

BUSHRA SUHAIL SHAIKH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -22(1)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blebushra Suhail Shaikh Ito, Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai Flat No. 301, Cadel Queen, A- Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Wing, S.V.S. Marg, Cadel Road, Vs Mumbai – 400012. Mahim West, Mumbai-400016. [Pan: Dsjps1674C] (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ca Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Department Represented By : Date Of Institution : 13.05.2025 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 18.08.2025

demonetization period, no cash was deposited. The assessing officer treated the source of opening capital of Rs. 5,65,756/- as unexplained and charged under section 115BBE. On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the action of assessing officer was upheld. The ld. CIT(A) held that assessee failed to furnish explanation or submission of both the issues despite allowing opportunity

PRATIK MAYUR DOSHI,PALGHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JURISDICTION WARD 1, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

condone the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that, the sole dispute is against the addition made by the Ld. AO based 11 I.T.A. No. 7516/Mum/2025 on cash deposits made during the demonetization

RAMESH LALAWAT,VASHI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Lalawat Income Tax Officer, Room No 102, Goma Sadan Ward 28(2)(1), Plot No 400, Mumbai Nr Cisf, Juhu Gaon Vs. Sector No. 11, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Pan: Aeepl2218K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074653077(1), Dated 18.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Mum-W-(272)(91), U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

demonetization period. It is therefore prayed to your honour to delete that addition made by the Ld. CIT (A) and necessary directions may be given in this regard.” 3. There is a delay of 202 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal as noted by the registry for which a petition for condonation

SULTAN SINGH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhri

condonation of delay’. The assessee has mentioned reasons for non compliance before the CIT(A) in affidavit as under: 1. The Assessee,an individual, was regularly filing his income tax return before the year under consideration.In the AY.2017- 18, due to personal problems, he could not file his return of Income in time. The Appellant was running a prop. concern

SULTAN SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhri

condonation of delay’. The assessee has mentioned reasons for non compliance before the CIT(A) in affidavit as under: 1. The Assessee,an individual, was regularly filing his income tax return before the year under consideration.In the AY.2017- 18, due to personal problems, he could not file his return of Income in time. The Appellant was running a prop. concern

SHRI ABDUL GANI ABDUL MAJID KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(1)(1) NOW ITO 40(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing the appeal is not condoned and the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. 7. In result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 7 Shri Abdul Gani Abdul Majid Khan 7. Before us the assessee appeared in person alongwith his authorised representative. At the time of hearing, the assessee was confronted with regard the fact

AMINA NATHU SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(1)-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay of 134 days in filing of the appeal by the Appellant without appreciating that the Appellant was in the business of trading in milk, is not educated and certainly not computer savy. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the additions

PRIYA SUDHIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER-CIRCLE 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

delay of 164 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal is hereby condoned. P a g e | 5 4. On merits of the case, it is submitted that the assessee deposited cash during the demonization period amounting to Rs.14 lakh. It is submitted that, the assessee had sufficient cash as on 01.04.2016 for which reliance is placed

SANTOSH MORE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1) MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh More Income Tax Officer Room No.6/14, Hirji 20(3)(1) Bhojraj Chawl, Room No. 621, Kalachowki S.O., 6Th Floor, Ambi Khalasa, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033. Lalbaug, Pan:Aotpm3679Q Mumbai- 400012. (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay of 249 days in filing the appeal be condoned. Santosh More; A. Y.2017-18 2. The Ld NFAC erred in confirming addition of cash deposited in bank account during the demonetization

RAJANI HARISH SHETTY,ULHASNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in filing the present appeal of about 404 days in filing the present appeal. 6. We have heard both the sides. 7. The Assessee has filed affidavit explaining reasons for delay in filing the appeal wherein it has been stated as under: “I, Rajani Harish Shetty, at present residing at Flat No. 11, Building No. 8, Pushpanjali

MAHESH KRISHNAKANT PANDEY,GHATKOPAR WEST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27 2 2 MUMBAI , VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Now adverting to merit of the case. 5. I find that AO while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- which includes Rs. 14,50,000/- deposits during demonetization

VAIBHAV VINOD AGGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate and may be condone in the interest of justice. 3. On merits, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee was a proprietor of Unique Logistics, engaged in the business of distributing of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) product of Nestle and Britania. The assessee has shut down

KKB TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

condoning\nthe delay in filing the appeal of 161 days, though there exist bonafide reasons and\ncompelling circumstances that had precluded the appellant to file the 1 appeal in time;\n2.0 on facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT (A) ought to have\nconsidered the reasonable cause that had precluded the appellant to participate

DAHISAR GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PALGHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALGHAR, PALGHAR

In the result, ground No. 1, 2, 5 & 6 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Dahisar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Acit, Circle, Palghar, Sanstha Maryadit, Vs Bidco Road, Maharashtra- At Post Manor Tarphe, Manor Telipada, 401404. Palghar, Maharashtra – 401404. [Pan: Aacad6573G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

demonetization period. 4. I have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities and the material placed before me. Firstly, I am considering the plea of assessee in condoning the delay

JAIMIN S PATEL,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Jaimin S. Patel Acit – Circle – 3(1)(1) Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 135 Patel Faliyu, Itkala Valid Bharuch Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Gujarat – 393135 Vs Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan. Aiopp 2429 E Maharashtra Appellant (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rasesh Shah Fca & Shri Brijesh Vyas Department Represented By : Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 30.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

condoning the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT (A). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs.35,85,170/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances

NOOR MOHAMMED HASAN MOHAMMED KHAN,MAZHAR CHAWL vs. WARD 26(2)(3), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that on verification of the bank statements pertaining to the three bank accounts mentioned below by the Assessee it was observed by the AO that during the year under consideration the Assessee had deposited the amount of Rs.26,88,000/- in total

RAHUL L. SINGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3653/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

condonation of delay of 167 days which is already argued by both the rival parties before the tribunal. Hence, after hearing both the parties, we dismiss ground No. 2 as not pressed before the tribunal. The ground no 1 is already adjudicated by us in preceding para’s of this order and now it does not require separate adjudication