CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned the delay and thereby rejected the appeal. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appellant's appeal and confirming the action of the AO of making addition of Rs.1,74,61,831/- under various sections which are tabulated below without providing sufficient and proper opportunity to the appellant 2 ITA No.93/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 and without verifying

SUNITA MOHAN PATIL,NASHIK vs. ACIT 1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay of 109 days and proceed for adjudication of the appeal. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed. Based on the information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that

RUHEENA BEGUM SHAIKH AMIR,,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay is condoned and the case is heard on merits. 5. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of retail trade in automotive fuel and petrol pump. The assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 27-10-2017 declaring total income of Rs. 9,73,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS

DANDE MADHUSUDAN JAIKRISHANA HUF,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 8. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the addition of Rs.32,59,830/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference

JASVINDERSINGH INDERMOHANSINGH BHATIYA,NANDED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NANDED, NANDED

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.277/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal) "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4 8. On merits, it is submitted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not given reasonable opportunity to substantiate the source for cash deposits made. Therefore, the matter be remanded to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo disposal for which the ld. DR has no serious objection. From

KAVYAA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. ITO-3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1715/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 Kavya Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Income Tax Officer-3, 3, Patel Complex, Patel Valley S Panvel. Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mira Road, Thane – 401104. Pan: Aaccn9469K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 24.08.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.09.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

demonetized currency during 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016. The AO collected information from Punjab National Bank and Union Bank of India. AO issued 2 various notices to the assessee, but assessee failed to file any reply. ITA No.1715/PUN/2025 [A] Accordingly the AO passed an Assessment Order u/s.144 of the Act on 30/9/2019 determining Total Income at Rs.72,60,500/-. 4. Aggrieved

GURJEETSINGH JARNAIL SINGH NAHAL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(3) , PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1222/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay of 222 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the instant appeal, assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law and on facts in upholding the best judgment assessment order passed u/s 144 by the learned AO by making following additions

KADUBAI ASARAM DALVI @ ANITA BHASKAR BANKAR,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2332/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay of 365 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee failed to place necessary details before the lower authorities and stated that the assessee is a Government employee working as a Clerk in the Govt. Pleader Office, High Court Bench, Aurangabad

G N ADGAONKAR JWELES,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay of 172 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the finding of ld.CIT(A) confirming the adhoc addition of Rs.22,05,077/- made by Assessing Officer disallowing 50% of the total cash purchases of Rs.44,10,154/- made from unregistered dealers. 5. Brief facts of the case

SHIVKANT SAKHARAM MOHITE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WAR 1(5), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

delay of 438 days, attributed to issues with online communication and the tax consultant's technical knowledge. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.14,99,000/- based on cash deposits during demonetization, treating the assessee's return as invalid.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

PRABHAT GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT TADWADI,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2818/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs Ito, Ward-3, Prabhat Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Panvel Patsanstha Maryadit Tadwadi, At-Tadwadi, Post-Chordhe, Chordhe B.O., Tadwadi, Raigarh- 402109 Maharashtra Pan-Aabtp4003F Appellant Respondent

condoned the delay and ought not to have dismissed the appeal inasmuch as he has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety and hence, the action of the CIT(A) is bad in law and needs to be reversed. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the following grounds of appeal on merits

SHRI SANTOSH HARICHAND KATRELA, ,BEED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, BEED

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.339/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Santosh Harichand Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Beed. Katrela, Audut Campus, Jalna Road, Gujrathi Colony Beed, Beed- 431122. Pan : Akgpk6862N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Filed With Delay Of 99 Days. In The Light Of The Fact That Due To Covid-19 Pandemic The Period Of Limitation Has Already Been Extended By Hon’Ble Supreme

condone the delay in filing the appeal, considering the widespread pandemic situation, and admit it for adjudication on facts and merit of the case and oblige. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, The Ld.CIT(As),NFAC Delhi, has erred in confirming addition of Rs.4,74,000/-, invoking provision of section

SHUBHAMANGAL SADI DEPO,HINGOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 162 days and proceed for adjudication of appeal. 6. Facts in brief are that the assessee are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Retail and Wholesale Cloth trading. It filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 13.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.44,999/-. Based on the information

P PUJYA BHALCHANDRA MAHARAJ NAGARI SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT KHAREPATAN,KANKAVALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SINDHUDURG

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2604/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

demonetization period to the tune of Rs.25,95,910/- in the bank account maintained with Sindhudurg District Central Co.op Ltd., Kharepatan, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act to the assessee calling for the details. Since there was no response to such notice from the side of the assessee, the AO completed the best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act after

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMAPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

delay is condoned. Findings & Analysis : 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had filed Return of Income on 31.10.2017 for 2 ITA Nos.1596 & 1598/PUN/2025 [A] A.Y.2017-18 claiming deduction u/s.80P of Rs.26,28,869/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. 3.1 During the scrutiny proceedings, Assessing Officer(AO) observed that Assessee

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

delay is condoned. Findings & Analysis : 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had filed Return of Income on 31.10.2017 for 2 ITA Nos.1596 & 1598/PUN/2025 [A] A.Y.2017-18 claiming deduction u/s.80P of Rs.26,28,869/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. 3.1 During the scrutiny proceedings, Assessing Officer(AO) observed that Assessee

BHUPESH PRALHADRAO PATIL,DHULE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

demonetization period. (ii) Addition of Rs.11,21,079/- as business income. (iii) Addition of Rs.63,193/- on account of receipt of professional/technical fees. 3 Bhupesh Pralhadrao Patil (iv) Addition of Rs.2,75,400/- on account of commission/brokerage. (v) Addition of Rs.20,27,681/- on account of payment in respect of immovable property. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT

VAITHAV ARUN HARNASKAR,PUNE vs. PCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 263 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC