ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE ,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

condonation of delay being devoid of reasonable and sufficient cause merits dismissal, ergo ordered accordingly. 6. We now deal with ITA No. 1919/PUN/2017; wherein we note that; 6.1 The appellant assessee is public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and is also registered u/s 12A and u/s 80G of the Act. 6.2 The assessee society

EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY, AURANGABAD ,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, EXEMTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

condonation of delay being devoid of reasonable and sufficient cause merits dismissal, ergo ordered accordingly. 6. We now deal with ITA No. 1919/PUN/2017; wherein we note that; 6.1 The appellant assessee is public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and is also registered u/s 12A and u/s 80G of the Act. 6.2 The assessee society

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 14,85,000/-by invoking provisions of section 69A of Income Tax Act 1961.on the basis of declaration

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

undisclosed capital gain and (iii) Rs.75,896/- on account of interest income. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 755 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone

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

undisclosed LTCG, thereby assessing the total income of Rs. 2,66,70,989 to the returned income of Rs. 2,87,780/-. 2. Appellant contends that, notice u/s 148 of ITA, 1961 dated 21/07/2022 issued without following mandatory procedure laid down in 148A proceedings and without following law laid down by Rajiv Bansal (2024] 167 toxmann.com

CHANDRABHAN SURYABHAN SHINE,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

undisclosed long term capital gain and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.96,74,217/- in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3 5. Since there was a delay of 143 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone

SARIKA ZENDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1776/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21

undisclosed speculative profit. 3. Aggrieved assessee challenged the assessment made by the AO before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC but with a delay of 191 days. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable, without condoning the delay. 4. Further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the appeal is called

MR. ANANDA KONDU AKHADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 9(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay in filing present appeal be kindly condoned and Appellant be allowed to present his appeal in the interest of justice. 6. It is humbly prayed that the Appellant be kindly allowed to file any additional evidences in the interest of justice, if any. 7. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds

VTP FOODS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7 (3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly 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. 6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an AOP and engaged in agricultural activities. It filed its return of income on 20.10.2017 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the norms of CASS. Accordingly statutory notices

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. MUKUND MANOHAR SANGAMNERKAR, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1092/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Mukund Manohar Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.09/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1092/Pun/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukund Manohar Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Abhay A. Avchat Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Act. 7.1 I have carefully considered the facts and evidences on record. The appellant has not complied to the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. The AO made the addition of introduction of capital in F.Y 20 14-15 LIC Maturity of Rs.1,51,885 and capital introduction of Rs.2,55,601u/s

SHRI. KISHOR TARACHAND PATIL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2),, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1462/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Kishor Tarachand Patil, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Flat No.102, Shree Anant Villa Appt., Nashik Near Deepak Laundry, Samartha Nagar, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Ahrpp7621C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sanket Milind Joshi Revenue By Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11-02-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : This Appeal Is Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nashik’S Order Dated 06.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. There Is A Delay Of 496 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Appellant Filed Condonation Petition. In The Condonation Petition, The Appellant Submitted That The Appellant Had Suffered Due To Slow Down In Business Which Resulted In Huge Outstanding Of Creditors. Due To Financial Pressure, Health Of The Appellant Also Suffered. The Appellant Was Under Complete Bed Rest For More Than 5 Months Around March, 2016. The Appellant Filed Copy Of Medical Certificate. The Appellant Also Submitted That He Was Kidnapped By The Creditors. Subsequently, There Was A Criminal Case Filed Against The Appellant. The Appellant Also Filed Fir Against The Kidnappers. The Appellant Also Filed Copy Of The Fir. The Appellant Was Under Police Custody, When The Bail Petition Was Rejected By The Hon’Ble High Court & The Hon’Ble Supreme Court. Based On All These Facts, The Appellant Requested For Condonation Of Delay.

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 8. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee for non- attendance on the part of the assessee on the ground that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal without appreciating

SIDDHESHWAR INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd., 2(2), Pune. Plot No.A-50, H- Block, Midc, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aagcs4976E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing 09.03.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 23.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. [A] 12 Has Erred By Wrongly Enhance The Amount Of Rs.2,95,00,000/- By Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction U/S 43B In Revised Return Of Income Filed U/S 153A Of The I T Act. The Aforesaid Addition Being Arbitrary, Perverse, Based On Surmises & Conjecture

condone the delay of 95 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of spare parts and engineering goods. The return of income for the assessment year

ARJUNSINGH CHHAGANSINGH VYAS,LONAVLA vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

delay; case-wise; respectively; thereby holding that the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause in support of it’s condonation averments submitted therein. 3. Learned counsel at this stage invited our attention to the assessee’s identical condonation averments reading as under : “2. I am engaged in the business activities of Tours and travels under the name and style

ARJUNSINGH CHHAGANSINGH VYAS,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

delay; case-wise; respectively; thereby holding that the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause in support of it’s condonation averments submitted therein. 3. Learned counsel at this stage invited our attention to the assessee’s identical condonation averments reading as under : “2. I am engaged in the business activities of Tours and travels under the name and style

ARJUNSINGH CHHAGANSINGH VYAS,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

delay; case-wise; respectively; thereby holding that the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause in support of it’s condonation averments submitted therein. 3. Learned counsel at this stage invited our attention to the assessee’s identical condonation averments reading as under : “2. I am engaged in the business activities of Tours and travels under the name and style

POONAM RAHUL ANAND,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2147/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Poonam Rahul Anand, V The Income Tax Officer, Anands Plot No.70, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Niwas River View, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422007. Pan: Addpa4704D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 16.07.2024 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 224 Days In Filing The Appeal Against The Asst. Order U/S 147 Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause & The Same Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice.

Income Tax Act, 1961; dated 16.07.2024 for the A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the appeal against the asst. order u/s 147 without appreciating that the said delay was due to reasonable cause

SADASHIV KRISHNAPPA NAMDE,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.999/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna Brahman Galli, Nandi Mandir, Kadrabad, Jalna- 431203 Maharashtra Pan-Anrpn9966G Appellant Respondent

Income Tax Act, 1961. A. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 17 days in filing of the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit is placed on record. On going through the contents of application and after hearing Ld. Departmental 2 Representative (DR), I am of the considered view that for reasonable cause assessee could

THE GOVERNMENT ITI BASMATHNAGAR IMC SOCIETY ,HINGOLI vs. EXEMPTION WARD , NANDED

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2969 & 2972/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Government Iti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Basmathnagar Imc Society, Exemption Ward, Opp To Navoday Vidyalay, Range 179, Nanded Basmat Parbhani Road, Basmathnagar, Dist. Hingoli 431512 Maharashtra Pan : Aabtg2544A Appellant Respondent

undisclosed income and charging it to tax at MMR of 60% u/s 115BBE and the learned CIT A erred in confirming the same. 3. The interest income earned by assessee, which is subject matter of addition, represents interest earned on bank deposits made / kept out of the stat government grants: The AO erred in treating it as unexplained income despite