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

142(1) of the Act were served upon the assessee. Ld.AO observed that assessee has shown LTCG at ₹ 90,95,120/-, and against this income, has claimed deduction u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act and declared NIL income under capital gain. Ld.AO, further on examination of records, observed that on account of transaction of conversion of capital asset into stock

SANTOSH HASTIMAL GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Santosh Hastimal Gugale At. 4253, Chitale Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeapg2716G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

iii) M/s. D.P. Jagtap Vs. ACIT in ITA No.418/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2010-11, order dated 15.02.2017 8. He further pointed out that the Tribunal in earlier decision in the case of Nandkishor Tulsidas Katore Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.2174 to 2180/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09, vide order dated 14.12.2016 had relied

ARCHANA PRASHANT DATE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2472/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) dated 30.03.2022 and 03.08.2022 are not the satisfaction but the show causes levying the penalty for which the satisfaction was to be recorded in the assessment order. This ground is accordingly rejected. 6.4 The next ground relates to the plea that the appellant had requested that the penalty proceeding be kept in abeyance. However

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

penalty based on multiple notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which remained unattended. 7. The plain reading of applicable provision of clause (b) of s/s (1) of section 271of the Act revealed us that, ‘the assessee’s failure to comply with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of ITAT-Pune

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

penalty based on multiple notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which remained unattended. 7. The plain reading of applicable provision of clause (b) of s/s (1) of section 271of the Act revealed us that, ‘the assessee’s failure to comply with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of ITAT-Pune

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

penalty based on multiple notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which remained unattended. 7. The plain reading of applicable provision of clause (b) of s/s (1) of section 271of the Act revealed us that, ‘the assessee’s failure to comply with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of ITAT-Pune

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

penalty based on multiple notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which remained unattended. 7. The plain reading of applicable provision of clause (b) of s/s (1) of section 271of the Act revealed us that, ‘the assessee’s failure to comply with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of ITAT-Pune

INDRAJEET RAJKUMAR KHARDE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

142(1)/143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 No. _____ dated ______ 4 ITA 1879/PUN/2018 Indrajeet R Kharde A.Y. 2011-12 “Have concealed the particulars of your income or --------- furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.00 AM/PM on 15- 04-2014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty

SAKAL PAPER LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR.-6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.498/Pun/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 22.02.2006 to the assessee. The assessee filed revised return on 11.12.2006 revising the total income to Rs.11,52,23,360/-. During the assessment, AO assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.16,82,27,990/-. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.23,27,607/- u/s.271

SAKAL PAPERS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 6, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.498/Pun/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 22.02.2006 to the assessee. The assessee filed revised return on 11.12.2006 revising the total income to Rs.11,52,23,360/-. During the assessment, AO assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.16,82,27,990/-. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.23,27,607/- u/s.271

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 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 Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20/12/2017. There is no dispute on these dates. Thus, the penalty order was passed within Six(06) months of passing the assessment order. The relevant Section 275 is reproduced here as under : Section 275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of\nincome.\"\n5.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime,\nthe Ld. PCIT examined the records and noted that the order passed by the\nAssessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He noted\nthat during

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of\nincome.\"\n5.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime,\nthe Ld. PCIT examined the records and noted that the order passed by the\nAssessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He noted\nthat during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

iii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Pericherry. (iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Goa Dorado. (v) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine. (vi) Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP V/s. NFAC reported in (2023) 334 CTR (Del) 363, Para No.7

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

iii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Pericherry. (iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Goa Dorado. (v) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine. (vi) Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP V/s. NFAC reported in (2023) 334 CTR (Del) 363, Para No.7

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.741/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prakash Raman Chaudhari Garden View Bungalow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan: Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

142(1) assessee has disclosed additional income of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of additional stock and accordingly the income is declared at Rs.45,62,534/-. Since, the additional income of Rs.20,00,000/- is declared by the assessee as result of search action penal proceedings u/s 271AAA are separately initiated.” 6. The Assessing Officer thus, levied penalty

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.741/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prakash Raman Chaudhari Garden View Bungalow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan: Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

142(1) assessee has disclosed additional income of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of additional stock and accordingly the income is declared at Rs.45,62,534/-. Since, the additional income of Rs.20,00,000/- is declared by the assessee as result of search action penal proceedings u/s 271AAA are separately initiated.” 6. The Assessing Officer thus, levied penalty

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

142(1) of the Income Tax, third para is about “have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. In this printed format, the AO has not mentioned which of the paragraph is applicable to the assessee. Neither the AO has struck-off the appropriate words, therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty notice