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

8) reads as "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or sub-section (7), where under reported income is in consequence of misreporting, the penalty shall be equal to two hundred percent (200%) of the amount of tax payable on under reported income." Thus, provisions of section 270A (6) are not applicable in a case where there is misreporting

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:

u/s 270A of the Act. The provisions of section 270A as stood at the relevant time read as under: “Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported

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.

penalty proceedings stand vitiated on account of the Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the relevant clauses (a) to (f) to sub-section (9); while initiating the proceedings herein u/s. 270A(8) of the Act, thereby alleging under reporting of income as a sequence of misreporting. Faced with this situation, we find no merit in Revenue’s arguments placing reliance

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

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

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

8 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 imposing a petty penalty, then we are unable to comprehend as to what stopped the lower tax authorities in outstepping from principle of natural justice while dealing with impugned penalty proceedings. 12. In adjudicating the issue under consideration we are heedful to state that, the penalty provisions of section

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

8 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 imposing a petty penalty, then we are unable to comprehend as to what stopped the lower tax authorities in outstepping from principle of natural justice while dealing with impugned penalty proceedings. 12. In adjudicating the issue under consideration we are heedful to state that, the penalty provisions of 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

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)

section (2) puts an embargo on imposing of penalty u/s 270A and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on suchundisclosed income falling within the realm of subsection (1). This clearly establishes the solitary domain ofsection 271AAB over undisclosed income where the proceedings u/s 132 of the Act is initiated and at thesame time it drags out the authorisation

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

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

271(1)(c) was applicable only upto\n assessment year 2016-17 and was replaced by a new section i.e.\n270A of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer under similar facts\nimposed penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act for assessment year\n2017-18. As the facts of the case have already been discussed in\npreceding paragraphs, we proceed

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

271(1)(c). 6.7. In view of the facts of the case and the above-mentioned judicial decision, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant had underreported his income by filing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the impugned penalty order u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act for under-reporting of income in consequence to mis- reporting

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

271(1)(c) still hold good even in the impugned penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 6 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. We find the Ld. CIT(A) in the instant case has initiated

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)

270A of Income Tax Act are hereby initiated for under-reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof. Further, as the assessee failed to comply the provision of section 269SS of the I.T.Act, 1961 by receiving of cash of Rs. 2,50,14,000/-, hence a reference is being made to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range

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 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.” 8. Respectfully following the above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Ahmedabad vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322 (SC), we find force in the arguments of Ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee has not 7 under-reported

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

DEEPAK BHIKA SURYAWANSHI,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal Vs. Ito, Nashik 1, Vraj Vihar, Vidhate Nagar, S.No.15-10-2011, Cts No.2421, Fame Theatre, Nsk Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 Pan: Aaxpg5950C Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Plot No.36, Nashik Vrundavan Bunglow, Deffodil Soc, Wadala-Pathardi Road, Opp. Guru Govind Singh College, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Achps8498R Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings stand vitiated on account of the Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the relevant clauses (a) to (f) to sub- section (9); while initiating the proceedings herein u/s. 270A(8) of the Act, thereby alleging under reporting of income as a sequence of misreporting. Faced with this situation, we find no merit in Revenue’s arguments placing reliance

ANNASAHEB NAMDEO GUNJAL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal Vs. Ito, Nashik 1, Vraj Vihar, Vidhate Nagar, S.No.15-10-2011, Cts No.2421, Fame Theatre, Nsk Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 Pan: Aaxpg5950C Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Plot No.36, Nashik Vrundavan Bunglow, Deffodil Soc, Wadala-Pathardi Road, Opp. Guru Govind Singh College, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Achps8498R Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings stand vitiated on account of the Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the relevant clauses (a) to (f) to sub- section (9); while initiating the proceedings herein u/s. 270A(8) of the Act, thereby alleging under reporting of income as a sequence of misreporting. Faced with this situation, we find no merit in Revenue’s arguments placing reliance

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