MANOJ SAHADEVRAO JADHAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed
ITA 90/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.90/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Manoj S. Jadhav, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.602, Ishan Shrusti, Vs Ward-3(1), Pune. Warje, Pune – 411052. Pan: Aeopj 8160 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune Dated 28.11.2017 For The A.Y. 2009-10, Emanating From The Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.06.2012. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Condoned The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Ought To Have Decided The Appeal On Merits. 2. Without Prejudice To Ground Of Appeal No.L Above, The Appellant Submits That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Learned Cit[A] May Please Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Restored Before The Learned C.I.T.[A] With A Direction To Decided The Appeal On Merits. 3. The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Learned Assessing Officer Being Patently Illegal, Bad In Law, Arbitrary, Perverse, Without
Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274
delay in filing the appeal before the learned
CIT[A] may please be condoned and the appeal be restored before the learned C.I.T.[A] with a direction to decided the appeal on merits.
3. The impugned penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer being patently illegal, bad in law, arbitrary, perverse, without
ITA No.90/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10
Manoj Sahadevrao
