JAIKISHIN OMPRAKASH PAHUJA,GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN, MUMBAI

sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act\nand charged interest under the relevant provisions.\n8. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred\nan appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) observed\nthat the appeal was filed with a delay of 492 days. The assessee\nsought condonation

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay request of the appellant and in dismissing the appeal without going into the grounds of appeal. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. AO, erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,67,77,000/- towards the deposit in bank Account as unexplained money under section

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 PALGHAR, THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay request of the appellant and in dismissing the appeal without going into the grounds of appeal. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. AO, erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,67,77,000/- towards the deposit in bank Account as unexplained money under section

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-1 PALGHAR , MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay request of the appellant and in dismissing the appeal without going into the grounds of appeal. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. AO, erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,67,77,000/- towards the deposit in bank Account as unexplained money under section

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -1 PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay request of the appellant and in dismissing the appeal without going into the grounds of appeal. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. AO, erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,67,77,000/- towards the deposit in bank Account as unexplained money under section

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

Section 119 (2)(b) which provides that CBDT can authorize income tax authority to admit an application for condonation of delay for an unavoidable circumstances. As there was no malafde intention to concealment of Income of F.Y. 2016-17. please give us the opportunity to fle my pending ITR and also drop the penalty Proceeding U/s 271F

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

Section 119 (2)(b) which provides that CBDT can authorize income tax authority to admit an application for condonation of delay for an unavoidable circumstances. As there was no malafde intention to concealment of Income of F.Y. 2016-17. please give us the opportunity to fle my pending ITR and also drop the penalty Proceeding U/s 271F

RAJIV PRATAP JOSHI,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

271F of the Act, which was communicated to the appellant on 20.11.2013. The First appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay in filing the same. 7. The reason shown by the assessee is that the penalty order was not received on assessee’s e-mail

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

delay was computed in a reasonable and prudent manner based on past experience of the company and the company has a policy to write back the unused amounts and offer the same for taxation on expiry of the relevant period for claim of damages and there is no leakage of revenue as the company is being taxed at a flat

SMT. RAVINDER KAUR BHATIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19 (3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Ravinder Kaur Bhatia, Income Tax Officer, Ward 308, Tulsiani Chamber, Nariman Point, Vs. 19(3)(2), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Agapb 8595 M Appellant Respondent

delay in filing of appeal may kindly be condone. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred, both on facts and in law, in ignoring the contention of the appellant that the appeal was filed against the order Smt. Ravinder Kaur Bhatia 2 passed under section

VIKALP GOUTAM PAWAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-33(1)(7), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Act has been passed by the learned CIT(A) on 13/12/2023. Thereafter, necessary steps were taken for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal is on account of the circumstances beyond his control and there is no malafide intention in filing

RATNARAVI METAL IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFIICER 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

condoned the delay and decided the appeal on its merits. The appeal was accordingly restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "69A", "271F

RAJIV PRATAP JOSHI,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)-KALYAN, THANE, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming order of Assessing Officer levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,42,588/- by rejecting the Application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

271F may be deleted.” 4. In ITA. No. 708/Mum./2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee challenging penalty order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) on the ground of delay without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal and hence the delay

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

271F may be deleted.” 4. In ITA. No. 708/Mum./2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee challenging penalty order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) on the ground of delay without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal and hence the delay

SHASHIKANT KRISHNA SHETTY,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), KALYAN, KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2013-14

delay was not condone then appellant will suffer badly and tax will be charge for the sale of property which is already taxed in AY 2012-13 and tax will be levied for a wrong transaction which never happen. 2 Shashikant Krishna Shetty A.Y. 2013-15 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

NORMA LYDIA AYYASH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Norma Lydia Ayyash, Ito-24(3)(2), 15, Goundowli, Andheri East, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400069. Vs. Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Akipa 4487 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Saurabh V. Bhatt : Revenue By Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

section 144 of the Act i.e. best judgment assessment and made addition of of the Act i.e. best judgment assessment and made addition of of the Act i.e. best judgment assessment and made addition of ₹33,90,670/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer also . In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer also . In the assessment order, the Assessing

VIJAYKUMAR RAMRATAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-APPEAL INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

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

271F of the Act. 9. Consequential Interest: 9.1 Levying an interest of INR 5,00,877 in the assessment order under Section 234A of the Act. 9.2 Levying an interest of INR 12,71,457 in the assessment order under Section 234B of the Act.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative