SAI SAKSHI AUTOMOTIVE LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-6(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

investments in property and sales turnover. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. However, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the various notices issued by the Assessing Officer (in total 8 in number). The Assessing Officer therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment

KALPANA PRAKASH KALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(5), PUNE

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

unexplained investment in house property. 3. Since there was a delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds

SHRI DEEPAK AMBADAS NAGARGOJE,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR(JAO), AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

condoning the delay and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the ex-parte order of the Assessing Officer making the addition of Rs.1,02,12,720/- as unexplained investment

KISHORE KASHINATH KOLI,PANVEL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. Since the assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 125 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal by not condoning

ARUNDHATI DNYANDEO KALANE,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.623/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay of 363 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Assessee has raised four grounds of appeal of which Ground No.4 is general in nature which needs no adjudication. Ground No.1 has been raised challenging the jurisdiction assumed by the ld. Assessing Officer for carrying the re- assessment

AMBARWADIKAR INFRASTURCTURE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

unexplained investment in immovable properties. 3. Since there was delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by 219 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause for filing of such appeal with delay. Similarly, he also dismissed the appeal filed against

AMBARWADIKAR INFRASTURCTURE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

unexplained investment in immovable properties. 3. Since there was delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by 219 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause for filing of such appeal with delay. Similarly, he also dismissed the appeal filed against

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

SHIVRATAN MOTILALJI RATHI HUF,PUNE vs. ITO, JALNA, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.604/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1. The Appellant Requests Your Honor To Condone The Delay Of 64 Days In Filing The Appeal As The Delay Was Due To Unforeseen Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Appellant.

condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. 2 Ground 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the addition made by Ld. AO of Rs.5,83,870/- on account of unexplained Investment

CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

condoned the delay and thereby rejected the appeal. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appellant's appeal and confirming the action of the AO of making addition of Rs.1,74,61,831/- under various sections which are tabulated below without providing sufficient and proper opportunity to the appellant 2 ITA No.93/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 and without verifying

SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI HUF,PUNE vs. ITO, JALNA, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant based on the provisions of Section 249(4) of the Income

SHIVRATAN MOTILALJI RATHI HUF,PUNE vs. ITO, JALNA, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant based on the provisions of Section 249(4) of the Income

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

unexplained investment. We find due to delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he dismissed the appeal. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to non receipt of the physical copy of order and due to non intimation of any such order by the previous consultant

ULKA MADHUKAR SHINDE,PANVEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and\nadmit the same for adjudication.\n3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :\n“1.\nThe Ld AO relied on the information of AIR regarding cash deposit of\nRs.11,00,000/- in ShyamraoVithal Co-op Bank Ltd. Mumbai, but has\nno tangible reliable material of the same

APPASO SAMPATRAO MANE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

unexplained vide his order dated 16.01.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144\nr.w.s.144B of the Act.\n3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 143 days. The\nLd. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the said delay and dismissed the appeal\nobserving that

PATANAKAR SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO HUF,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

unexplained investment of the assessee. The AO vide order dated 11.01.2022 levied penalty of Rs.10,76,803/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the levy of penalty but with a delay of 111 days. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning

NISHAT HUSSEIANLI VAZIR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), 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.604/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nishat Husseianli Vazir, Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Pune. 7 M.G. Road, 36, Wonderland Camp, Pune- 411001. Pan : Adapv3432C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 2,06,83,929/- Instead Of Return Income Of Rs. 5,08,729/-. 2. The Appellant Contends That Unfortunately, The Appellant Failed To Check The Itba Portal & Learn About The Opportunities Of Hearing /Making Submission Before It Authorities & Neither Got Any Email Communication From The Office Of Learned Cit(A). Further, The Appellant Contends That Appellant Is Certainly Keen To Pursue The Matter On Merits & Facts.

unexplained investment being a purchase of immovable property.” 4. It is found that the instant appeal is filed with the delay of 194 days. The application for condonation

RAIGAD DARSHAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 533/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vs Ito Ward 8(3), Raigad Darshan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Pune Maryadit, Krishna Vatika, Jyotiba Nagar, Surve No. 77/1/2/1, Kalewadi, Kalewadi B.O-411017 Pune Maharashtra Pan-Aacar7156B Appellant Respondent

Delay of 333 days ought to have been condoned. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that appellant has been claiming this deduction in past many years and as such, considering the principle of consistency deduction u/s 80P of the ITA, 1961 is allowable. 4. The appellant contends that interest income derived from its investments held with various

AJAY BHAUSO KADAM,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD 2, SATARA, SATARA

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Ajay Bhauso Kadam Ito, Ward 2, Satara At Durandewadi, Post Kumthe, Satara, Vs. Dist. Satara – 415002 Pan: Cfwpk4338C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-05-2025 O R D E R

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 9. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income on 25.04.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,44,480/-. 4 Information was received that the assessee, in the capacity of General Power of Attorney