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

3) (1) (b) (A), there is under reporting of income consequent to misreporting of income to the extent of Rs.24,70,490/-in hands of appellant. 7.9 Further exclusion provided under section 270A(6)(a) is not applicable in view of 270A(8) as far as cases of misreporting of income like present case is concerned. Section 270A (8) reads

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

3 of its Order], the Penalty shall not have any ground for its levy. Therefore, the impugned Order passed under Section 270A is bad in law and liable to the quashed and set aside. 7. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in imposing penalty under Section 270A of the Act without jurisdiction. Since

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 NANDED, NANDED vs. SATYAWAN ARJUNRAO SHINDE, OSMANABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Nanded. Vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Nagar Accident Hospital, Gore Complex, Samta Nagar, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Baeps8869J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri B. P. Jaju Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Facts That The Assessee Has Suppressed Professional Receipts Not Shown In His Itr, Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune Vide Letter Dtd.02/01/2023 Directed That Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act May Be Initiated By The Ao At The Time Of Giving Effect To The Appeal Order Dtd.28/11/2022. Accordingly Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings As Per Clause (E) Of Sub-Section 9 Of Section 270A Of The Act.

271(1)(c) old penal provision. We order accordingly. The impugned penalty of Rs.15,54,736/- stands deleted in very terms.” 10. From the perusal of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) we find that Ld. CIT(A) has simply followed the above order passed by Jurisdictional Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. Ld. DR could not bring

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act states : "it appears to me under-reporting/misreporting of income". Obviously, the initiation of penalty itself is based on suspicion and surmise. Nowhere it has been pinpointed - either in the penalty notice or in the impugned order of penalty as to under which stipulated specific clauses (a) to (f) to sub- section

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act states : "it appears to me under-reporting/misreporting of income". Obviously, the initiation of penalty itself is based on suspicion and surmise. Nowhere it has been pinpointed - either in the penalty notice or in the impugned order of penalty as to under which stipulated specific clauses (a) to (f) to sub- section

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) was applicable only upto assessment year 2016-17 and was replaced by a new section i.e. 270A of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer under similar facts imposed penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act for assessment year 2017-18. As the facts of the case have already been discussed in preceding paragraphs, we proceed to decide

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

u/s 270A of the Act imposed a penalty of ₹1,64,392/- i.e. @200% of tax sought to be evaded for under-reporting of income holding it is in the nature of mis-reporting . 5. On an unsuccessful attempt before the first appellate authority, the appellant has set-up a present case for reversal of aforestated penalty on a solitary

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

u/s 270A of the Act imposed a penalty of ₹1,64,392/- i.e. @200% of tax sought to be evaded for under-reporting of income holding it is in the nature of mis-reporting . 5. On an unsuccessful attempt before the first appellate authority, the appellant has set-up a present case for reversal of aforestated penalty on a solitary

CHAITALI HOTELS,KOLHAPUR vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Chaitali Hotels Cit(A)-11, Pune 257, Kadamwadi Road, Vs. Kolhapur – 416005 Pan: Aagfc8348F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 O R D E R

3. The Ld. CIT(A) in distinguishing the case laws cited by the assessee failed to appreciate that the ratio laid down various courts in respect of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) still hold good even in the impugned penal proceedings under section 270A

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

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee's\npleadings and Revenue's foregoing vehement contentions. I find no\nreason to sustain either one of these three penalties. This is for the\nprecise reason that the Assessing Officer's sec.271(1)(c) order in the\nfirst and foremost assessment year 2016-17 had concluded that the\nassessee

MCM DEVELOPERS,AURANGABAD vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

3) r.w.s 153C of the Act on 07/05/2021 is rectified as under: “5.9 Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,22,21,350/-(Rs.2,50,14,000- Rs. 1,06,92,650- Rs. 21,00,000) is being made under the head Profits and gains of business and profession. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of Income Tax Act are hereby initiated

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

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

section 270A of the Act. The penalty amounts are calculated as under - The amount of under reporting of income 18,74,800 Tax on assessed income 3,18,956 Tax liability of returned income (no original return of - income filed) Tax on 'under-reporting of income in consequence of 3,18,956 misreporting. Penalty on 'under-reporting of income

BANSAL LAND DEVELOPERS,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PANVEL

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

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

u/s 43CA is not sustainable. 5.5 Whereas, the appellant has not submitted necessary documentary evidences as per the sub section (4) of the Act that, the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received by the appellant from the said buyers of the flat by any made other than cash on or before the date of agreement

JETSYNTHESYS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jetsynthesys Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Limited, 101-104, 1St Floor, Metro House, Mangaldas Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaicm1358A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of The Act It Be Held That The Penalty Imposed U/S 270A

Section 270A(9) for categorizing under-reporting as misreporting of income. Thus, order passed is without jurisdiction and bad in law. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee. 3. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Facts of the case

YOGESH SHIVAJI SHINDE ,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Vs. Ito, National Faceless H. No.377, Mhb Colony, Assessment Centre, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Delhi. Pan : Aekps3129Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs. 56,350/- On The Ground That The Assessee Had Under Reported & Mis Reported His Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

270A was not justified in view of the explanation offered by the assessee. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax passes the order under section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving us any further opportunity to produce any explanation or documentary evidence.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual salaried employee

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

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

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

section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 08.03.2021 after recording the reasons and obtaining the approval from the competent authority. The assessee in response to the same vide letter dated 06.04.2021 stated that the return of income filed on 14.02.2018 may be treated as return in response

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), 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

section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 08.03.2021 after recording the reasons and obtaining the approval from the competent authority. The assessee in response to the same vide letter dated 06.04.2021 stated that the return of income filed on 14.02.2018 may be treated as return in response

SMT ANJALI PRAPHULL SHIVALE,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(3), PUNE

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

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

section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 08.03.2021 after recording the reasons and obtaining the approval from the competent authority. The assessee in response to the same vide letter dated 06.04.2021 stated that the return of income filed on 14.02.2018 may be treated as return in response