MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.07.2014 by observing in para 4, 4.1 and 4.2 of the penalty order as under : “04. I have gone through his submission The assessee has mainly relied on that he has agreed to offer the income to buy the peace of mind and he has filed the revised return

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- SANGLI , SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

section u/s 80P(4) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as explained in detail in Assessment Order u/s 147, r.ws. 144

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT CIRCLE SANGLI, SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

section u/s 80P(4) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as explained in detail in Assessment Order u/s 147, r.ws. 144

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

u/s\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable.\nLd. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court\npassed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014]\n47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of\ndeduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

u/s\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable.\nLd. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court\npassed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014]\n47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of\ndeduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

SKODA AUTO [ I ] P.LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ACIT, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are issued only after passing of final assessment order. Since, the said notices were issued by the Assessing Officer along with the Draft Assessment Order, the said assessment order partake the character of final assessment order. The Assessing Officer at 6 ITA No. 2344/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2008-09 no point of time after issuing notice

UTTAM BALASAHEB GODBHARALE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 991/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 Uttam Balasaheb Godbharale, Shree Tyres Mrf, Samrat Chowk, Nanded Road, Latur - 413512 Pan :Aevpg3770N . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Latur. . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :16/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Appellant Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad [Forshort “Cit(A)”] Dt.07/05/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Originated From The Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt 29/06/2017 Passed By The Income Tax Officer [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 13

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Out of the total addition, an addition of ₹17,00,000/- u/s 68 explained cash deposit into Saving bank account, consequently penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied accordingly. 4.2 Ld. AO observing that, the aforesaid quantum order was remainedunchallenged by the assessee before

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

penalty u/s 271(1)(b).” 17. In ground No. 1 and 2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed transfer of jurisdiction u/s. 127 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the objections raised by assessee against change of jurisdiction by observing as under: “3.3 At the fag end of the assessment proceedings, Appellant objected to the order

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

penalty u/s 271(1)(b).” 17. In ground No. 1 and 2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed transfer of jurisdiction u/s. 127 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the objections raised by assessee against change of jurisdiction by observing as under: “3.3 At the fag end of the assessment proceedings, Appellant objected to the order

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

271(1)(b) of the Act. In case of failure of the assessee to comply with the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, the remedy with the Assessing Officer lies with framing of "best judgement assessment" under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act, as has been rightly done in the instant case but not to impose penalty u/s

UNIQUE AUTOMOBILES ,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.477/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Unique Automobiles, The Cit(A), Kolhapur. 32, Jayraj, Near Tata Petrol Vs Pump, Vishrambag, Sangli – . 416416. Pan: Aaafu 3563 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jansnani - Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2004-05 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur’S Order Dated 01.11.2017 Passed In Appeal No. Sli/093/10- 11, In Proceedings U/S.271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

271 FA ,] 30[ section 271FB, ] 3.1 [ section 271G.1] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A. sub- section (1) of section 272AA1 or 32 [ section 272B or] 33 [sub- section (1) of section 272BB or] 34 [subsection (1) of section 272BBB or] clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause

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 u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) arose in this bunch of appeals, at the request of rival parties hereof, these are taken up together for the sake of brevity and for a common & consolidated order. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 6 Gaurishankar Education Society, ITA No.982-985/PUN/2023

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 u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) arose in this bunch of appeals, at the request of rival parties hereof, these are taken up together for the sake of brevity and for a common & consolidated order. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 6 Gaurishankar Education Society, ITA No.982-985/PUN/2023

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 u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) arose in this bunch of appeals, at the request of rival parties hereof, these are taken up together for the sake of brevity and for a common & consolidated order. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 6 Gaurishankar Education Society, ITA No.982-985/PUN/2023