SANDIP D. PATIL, L/H OF LATE DINKAR A. PATIL,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, KOLHAPUR
The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 1681/PUN/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022AY 1997-98
Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.1680, 1681 & 1682 /Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1996-97, 97-98 & 1998-99 Late Dinkar Arjun Patil, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Sandip D. Patil, Vs Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. 790/40, Raigad Colony, Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur – 416008. Pan: Ahipp 8226 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For Assessment Years I.E.1996-97, 97-98, 98-99, All Dated 23.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2009.These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By Common Order As The Issue Involved Is Same. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal Number 1680/Pune/2019 Ay 1996-97 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 80L
292B. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that at the end of each discussion leading to addition the AO has mentioned that Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the legal ground raised by the assessee.
ITA No.1680 to 1683/PUN/2019 (04 Appeals)
Late Dinkar Arjun Patil L/h Sandip Dinkar Patil[A]
4.1 Thus
