DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.” 18. He submitted that since the order was passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) and Section 245H(1A), which are categorized as "any other case, therefore, the order passed u/s 271

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act. However, a perusal of sec. 271AAB(1A) of the Act suggests that this section does not have two limbs as against the section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Section 271AAB(1A) simply provides for levy of penalty

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act. However, a perusal of sec. 271AAB(1A) of the Act suggests that this section does not have two limbs as against the section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Section 271AAB(1A) simply provides for levy of penalty

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, AURANGABAD.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: MS.ASHTA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act, which had various Limbs, whereas Section 271AAB(1A) do not have any such. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) erred. Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in PCIT Vs. Sandeep Chandak [2018] 405 ITR 648 (All) dated 27.11.2017 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.04.2018. Ld.DR

HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

1A) of the IT Act. Subsequently On perusal of the above assessment order and records, it was found by Ld. PCIT (Central), Pune, that the addition regarding unexplained cash of Rs.9,54,97,018/- was made u/s 69A of the IT Act and the same was taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

271(1)(c) should follow suit and if done, the penalty u/.271(1)(c) has to reduced to Rs.3,55,82,949/-. 4.3. The claim of the appellant is squarely covered by the provisions of section 275(1A) and hence the JAO is directed to check the arithmetic accuracy in the claim of the appellant, and reduce the quantum

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

1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,MALEGAON vs. ITO WARD 1, MALEGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 275(1A) in the asst. order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.254 of the Act. 3] The learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that there was a variation in the charge/limb stated by the A.O. in the asst. order at the time of initiating penalty proceedings and at the time of levying penalty in the order u/s 271

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

KRISHAN KUMAR TARACHAND,PUNE vs. ITO (IT) WARD -2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.513/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Vs. Ito (It), Ward-2, Pune. Flat No.4, Anupam Apartments, Nda Pashan Road, Bavdhan Khurd, Pune- 411021 Pan : Abupd4503C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. (A) The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Law & In Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Merely On The Premise That The Appeal Was Filed Belatedly & Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. (B) The Ld. Nfac Erred In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Levying A Penalty Of Rs.6,09,760/- Without

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was levied, was allowed vide order dated 09-07-2023 by LD CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, in the light of order dated 09-07-2023 passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC, we are of the considered opinion, the matter requires remand to Assessing Officer in view of provisions of section

SAMBHAJI SATTAJI SARPATE,NANDED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NANDED, NANDED

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

u/s 271(1)(c) despite the fact that the appeal against the addition made by the Assessing Officer was pending disposal before the NFAC. Even the Tribunal had remitted the matter back to the file of the NFAC in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer in the quantum appeal. Further, we find that the impugned penalty order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Facts of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Facts of the case

AJIT NARAYAN PATIL. KOLHAPUR,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

penalty is levied 4 I.T.A.No.641/PUN./2023 for alleged undisclosed income for AY 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 52,25,780. The alleged undisclosed income is worked out on the basis of professional receipts for services relating to LAB + PELVIS + PROCEDURE. 2. Search was initiated in appellant's case on 6/12/2017. During the course of search, Appellant admitted that receipts