AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for AY 2010-11 on 16.10.2010 2 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs.7,12,450/-. Subsequently, he revised his return by filing revised return

MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 222 days are condoned. 4. We note that the issues raised in all the three appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the three appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 5. Apart from the grounds

MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 222 days are condoned. 4. We note that the issues raised in all the three appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the three appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 5. Apart from the grounds

MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 222 days are condoned. 4. We note that the issues raised in all the three appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the three appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 5. Apart from the grounds

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.] 6.2 This has been upheld

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.] 6.2 This has been upheld

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.] 6.2 This has been upheld

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.] 6.2 This has been upheld

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE(HUF),PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramdas Pandharinath Kale V The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), S Ward-12(3), Pune. Wagjholi, Kalewasti, Kasanand Road, Haveli, Pune – 412207. Pan: Aaqhr7916A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 19.10.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Each Ground Is Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other.

Section 271(1)(c) needs to be cancelled since it is not in keeping with provisions of law and the Id. CIT A erred in confirming the same 5. The learned CIT Appeals erred in dismissing assessee's appeal by rejecting delay condonation

MANOJ SAHADEVRAO JADHAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

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 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 and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT[A] ought to have condoned the delay

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

c)\nwhere an action has been taken under section 132 or\nsection 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date\non which he was served with a notice under sub-section\n(1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or\nafter the completion of the assessment, whichever is\nearlier.]\n6.2 This has been upheld

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or\nsection 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date\non which he was served with a notice under sub-section\n(1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or\nafter the completion of the assessment, whichever is\nearlier.]\n6.2 This has been upheld

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

condoning the delay in filing of appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 3: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. CIT(A) bas ermed in maintaining the penalty of Rs. 71,75,281 under section 271(1)(c

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

condoning the delay in filing of appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 3: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. CIT(A) bas ermed in maintaining the penalty of Rs. 71,75,281 under section 271(1)(c

MR. ANIL ANANDA POKHARNIKAR ,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(3) , PUNE

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred both on facts and in law, in passing an ex-parte adverse appeal order confirming the Penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, failing to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the correct legal position

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

c) Disallowance of wages and labour charges Rs. 1,48,985/- Rs.38,58,318/- Total 4. Since the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a delay of 34 and ½ months from the service of the assessment order, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of delay by observing as under: “DECISION

M/S. VIJAY CONSTRUCTION,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.791/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Vijay Construction, The Acit, Central Circle- Row House 1, Suyojit Garden, Vs 2, Nashik. Gangapur Road, Sahdev Nagar, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Aagfv 5234 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/07/2022 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)-12, Pune For The A.Y. 2012-13 Dated 18.06.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune Erred Inpassing An Ex-Party Order Without Appreciating The Fact That Due To Valid & Sufficient Reasons Your Appellant Could Not Attend The Hearing & Without Considering The Merit Of The Case, Your Appellant Prays For Set Aside The Matter To The Cit (Appeals) In The Interest Of Principal Of Natural Justice.Without Prejudice To The Above Grounds Of Appeal. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Ld.Assessing Officer Has Erred In Wrongly Imposing The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

delay condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c