APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

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

condonation of delay. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in Conducting proceedings ex-parte, not providing adequate and meaningful opportunities to present the case, relying on unverified information without giving an opportunity to rebut. Ground No. 4: 7 ITA No.1110/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the activity of construction. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.44,60,670/-. The return

KOLHAPUR ZILLA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KOLHAPUR

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

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

270A of the Act @ 50% of tax payable on the amount of under reported income amounting to Rs.5,72,116/- vide his order dated 15.09.2021. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of 223 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of the said delay but without

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase, sale and letting of leased residential and non-residential buildings. It filed its original return of income

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase, sale and letting of leased residential and non-residential buildings. It filed its original return of income

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase, sale and letting of leased residential and non-residential buildings. It filed its original return of income

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

section 249(3) of the Act. The same is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case.” 5 ITA No.347/PUN/2025, AY 2021-22 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee

THE MAYANI URBAN CO OP BANK LTD,SATARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE SATARA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1930/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Mayani Urban Co-Op. Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Bank Ltd., Tal: Khatav Dist.: Satara, Mayani, A/P Mayani- 415102. Pan : Aaaat7489H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harish Bist (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A(9) Of Rs.151140/- Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty U/S 270A Is Not Justified At 200%.

delay should not be condoned. However, without prejudice to above observation, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal after considering the merits of the case on the basis of written submission furnished by the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side

SOU JAYEE MOHITE SP MANDAL,SATARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1378/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sou Jayee Mohite Sp Mandal, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Rethare Bk,Tal Karad, Pune Dist. Satara – 415108 Maharashtra Pan : Aadts7345B Appellant Respondent

delay u/s.119(2)(b) is applicable to those cases where the return of income has not been filed or the return filed is invalid. Thus, the ld. CIT, Exemption rejected the condonation application of the appellant on the ground that the assessee’s return is a valid return and the same had already been processed

DEEPAK BHIKA SURYAWANSHI,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

270A (8) & (9) r.w. clauses (a to f) that the learned Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the corresponding default of assessee’s part indeed vitiates the entire proceedings as per (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) Schneider Electric South Asia Ltd. Vs. ACIT (in the new scheme) and Md. Farhan Vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) in section

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a body of individuals and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.6

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a body of individuals and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.6

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a body of individuals and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.6

RAJENDRA SHIVAJI THETE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Shivanjali, Plot No.25, H.No.4669, Shivaji Nagar, Ozar Mig, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Abwpt0060C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai : 09.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,49,704/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under Reporting Of Income In Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 8. We further find that apart from above decision the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal Pune Benches Pune has also passed other decisions, in the case of Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal vs ITO Nashik in ITA No.182/P/2024 order dated 21-10-2024 & in the case

RAIGAON SUGAR AND POWER LIMITED,KARAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, CIR-SATARA, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of assessment order dated 29.04.2021 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 07.01.2022 passed u/s. 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2 ITA.No.3176 & 3177/PUN./2025 (Raigaon Sugar and Power Ltd.) 2. Registry has informed that there

RAIGAON SUGAR AND POWER LIMITED,KARAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, CIR-SATARA, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of assessment order dated 29.04.2021 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 07.01.2022 passed u/s. 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2 ITA.No.3176 & 3177/PUN./2025 (Raigaon Sugar and Power Ltd.) 2. Registry has informed that there

ADESH TULSHIRAM MHATRE,DISTRICT RAIGAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

Section 270A, 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all notices relating to the income tax proceedings were issued solely through ITBA

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,JALGAON vs. THE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 296/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt Taradevi R Bafna 91, Subhash Chow, Jalgaon. Pan : Aadpb9424E . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Nasik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/10/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Challenged Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-12), Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/07/2018 For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 28/06/2017 Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-1(3), Nasik [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271Aab Of The Act.

delay stands condoned in the larger interest of justice. 8. We shall now deal with ground number 1 and 2 first, which alleges the deficiency in the SCN dt 28/12/2016 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 to the appellant pursuant to which the penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is levied, it’s apt to quote the text of the such

ANIL BHAGWAN TURUK,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2584 & 2585/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anil Bhagwan Turuk, V Income Tax Officer, 431/2329, Sant Tukaram S Ward-8(3), Pune. Nagar, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aappt2146K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 23.07.2025 & 28.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 13.09.2022 & Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience

270A of the Act, dated 22.03.2023 respectively. For the sake of convenience, ITA Nos.2584 & 2585/PUN/2025 [A] these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. We treat appeal in ITA No.2585/PUN/2025 as lead appeal. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts