SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee in the following paragraphs. 4. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :- “1. The learned CIT Appeal IV Pune has aid in law as well as in facts while confirming the order of assessing officer Dy. CIT Circle 6 levying penalty u/s 271

SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee in the following paragraphs. 4. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :- “1. The learned CIT Appeal IV Pune has aid in law as well as in facts while confirming the order of assessing officer Dy. CIT Circle 6 levying penalty u/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. PARESH FARMS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2023/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Paresh Farms Pvt. Ltd., “Akash” Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaccp3783C C.O. No.03/Pun/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2023/Pun/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Paresh Farms Pvt. Ltd., “Akash” Paithan Road, Aurangabad. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaccp3783C बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Aurangabad. Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal & Shri Vijay Saboo Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Appeal In Ita No.2023/Pun/2016 Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Aurangabad Dated 15.06.2016 For The 2 C.O. No.03/Pun/2019

condonation of such delay. For the sake of completeness, we proceed to extract the relevant para of the said affidavit :- “Form No.36A is delayed because company was not aware of limits in penalty proceeding u/s 271

ASHOK GURUNATH PATIL,LATUR vs. ITO WARD1(1), LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.594/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Ashok Gurunath Patil, Ito, Ward 1(1), Latur A/P Masobavadi, Khed, Nilanga, Latur-413522 Vs. Maharashtra Pan-Bihpp0618K अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pratik Sandbhor Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 24-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.08.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 27.02.2018. 2. Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 123 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Has Been Filed & Placed At Page No. 24-26 Of The Appeal Citing The Main Reason For The Delay, That The Assessee Was Not Aware Of Passing Of The Impugned Order As 2 The Tax Consultant Registered The E-Mail Id Of His Younger Son & The E-Mail Account Was Not In Use. After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative (Dr) & Perusing The Records We Find That The Sufficient Cause Prevented The Assessee From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit & The Delay Is Not Intentional. Therefore In The Larger Interest Of Justice & Also Placing Reliance On The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others(1987) 167 Itr 471(Sc) (Supreme Court) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Dated 21.03.2025 (2025) Insc 382) We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 123 Days & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.02.2018. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 123 days in filing of the appeal. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit has been filed and placed at Page No. 24-26 of the appeal citing the main reason for the delay, that the assessee was not aware

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

PRATAP WAMAN KHANDEBHARAD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.1,53,26,8235/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Since all these appeals were filed with a delay of about 12 months, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, dismissed these appeals as barred by limitation. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held

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

TULSABAI 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

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 of the appeal. Assessees have filed applications for condonation

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

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 of the appeal. Assessees have filed applications for condonation

ROHINI MARUTI 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

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 of the appeal. Assessees have filed applications for condonation

NEHA SAMYAK LODHA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

u/s. 271(1)(c), please be cancelled because the income is offered by the appellant her own and the default was not at all intentional. Grounds of Appeal No. 3 1. It is undisputed fact that the order levying penalty was neither served on the appellant nor was same put into motion for being served on the appellant within

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, failing to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the correct legal position in its proper perspective, and without adjudicating on the grounds of appeal and submissions put forth by the appellant and in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the order void ab-inito, perverse and band

ANAND SHESHRAO BHAROSE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, AURANGABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Anandrao Sheshrao Bharose, 32 Rani Laxmibai Road, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani . Appellant Pan No. Ahqpb 3615B V/S. The I.T.O. Ward 1(4), Aurangabad ……Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-01-2022 Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeal)-1 Aurangabad, Dated 27-3- 2018, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “Act”), Dated 24-03-2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Has Been Assailed On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us :

penalty initiated and levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are not according to the provisions of sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same may please be deleted. Just and proper relief may be granted to the appellant. 2 Shri Anandrao Sheshrao Bharose A.Y. 2010-11 2. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 2 ITA No.59/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in family business of agriculture. For A.Y. 2018- 19, the assessee did not file his return of income. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by Ld. AO. Ground 2: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Leamed CITIA), ered in not condoning the delay