PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

Section 283 of the Act are rightly invoked in this case. 5.2 Reliance can be placed on the decision in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Add CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 (1975) 90 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. South India Shipping Corp. Ltd. (1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 433 (1996) 233 ITR 546 (Mad). CIT V. M.M. Khambhatwala

KULDEEP MAKHIJA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(3), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

section 144 of the Act put assessee to a show-cause notice dt. 05/12/2019 [‘SCN’ hereinafter] as to why assessment in his case not be completed to the best of judgement on ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 18 Kuldeep Makhija Vs ITO ITA No. 0946/PUN/2024 AY: 2012-13 the basis of information vis-à-vis material available on record. When

MAHRATTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

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

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 2 ITA No.347/PUN/2025, AY 2021-22 22.12.2022 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7,80,59,045/- in the manner below : 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was filed with a delay

PRASANNA SHRIKANT PATANKAR,SATARA vs. ITO WD NO - 04, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1693/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, S. Ward-4, Satara. Azad Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025

section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1693/PUN/2025 [A] “1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld.CIT (A), NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

CHADRALOP SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,AURANGABAD vs. EXEMPTION WARD, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

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

condoned the delay of 144 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, considering the delay was not intentional. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and not seek unnecessary adjournments.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections

KISAN SEVA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,BUBNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2802/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17

Section 144 was neither willful nor deliberate but was due to the aforesaid genuine and unavoidable reasons. The delay in filing this appeal is of 180 days, calculated from 21.01.2019 to 20.07.2019.” 4.1 The above stated reasons for condoning

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under : “This is with reference to the Order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated April 24, 2024. Vide the said order the Appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the basis of request filed by the Appellant for the withdrawal of Appeal

MANOHAR WAMAN PANDAGALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), PUNE

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

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

section 139 of the Act. Based on the information received from INSIGHT portal, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that during the AY 2015-16, the assessee had deposited cash in his savings bank account, made time deposits, earned capital gain on sale of immovable property and received interest income which has not been offered to tax by the assessee

UNUS ABDULGAFAR SHAIKH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 69A applies only when amounts are not recorded in books. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act 5. The reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B is invalid. as reassessment based on a search action in a third-party case falls under Sec. 153C, not Sec. 147. Grounds on merits 6. The AO made the addition

UNUS ABDULGAFAR SHAIKH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 69A applies only when amounts are not recorded in books. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act 5. The reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B is invalid. as reassessment based on a search action in a third-party case falls under Sec. 153C, not Sec. 147. Grounds on merits 6. The AO made the addition

UNUS ABDULGAFAR SHAIKH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 69A applies only when amounts are not recorded in books. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act 5. The reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B is invalid. as reassessment based on a search action in a third-party case falls under Sec. 153C, not Sec. 147. Grounds on merits 6. The AO made the addition

UNUS ABDULGAFAR SHAIKH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 69A applies only when amounts are not recorded in books. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act 5. The reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B is invalid. as reassessment based on a search action in a third-party case falls under Sec. 153C, not Sec. 147. Grounds on merits 6. The AO made the addition

VIJAYMALA VILAS KALOKHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-10(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

condoned the genuine delay of 136 days 3 ITA No.1666/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14 caused as the appellant was completely unaware of the present proceeding, and the present situation is simply a fall-out of a communication gap. 5. The learned AO and CIT(A), NAFC erred in law in issuing an order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.wis