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

u/s 271(1)(c) as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile Vs. DCIT [(2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM)] and Smt.Ramila Ratilal Shah Vs. ACIT [(1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171]. The admission of substantial question of law by the Hon’ble High Court lends credence to the bona fides of the assessee in claiming deduction. Once

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

6. . . . .the assessee had concealed particulars of this income in the original return, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are initiated.” Extracts from Penalty order : (Para Nos. 16, 17 & 18) : “16. Even under these circumstances the assessee claims that there is no concealment on his part and penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

6. . . . .the assessee had concealed particulars of this income in the original return, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are initiated.” Extracts from Penalty order : (Para Nos. 16, 17 & 18) : “16. Even under these circumstances the assessee claims that there is no concealment on his part and penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

6. . . . .the assessee had concealed particulars of this income in the original return, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are initiated.” Extracts from Penalty order : (Para Nos. 16, 17 & 18) : “16. Even under these circumstances the assessee claims that there is no concealment on his part and penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

6. . . . .the assessee had concealed particulars of this income in the original return, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are initiated.” Extracts from Penalty order : (Para Nos. 16, 17 & 18) : “16. Even under these circumstances the assessee claims that there is no concealment on his part and penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

6. . . . .the assessee had concealed particulars of this income in the original return, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are initiated.” Extracts from Penalty order : (Para Nos. 16, 17 & 18) : “16. Even under these circumstances the assessee claims that there is no concealment on his part and penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

6. . . . .the assessee had concealed particulars of this income in the original return, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are initiated.” Extracts from Penalty order : (Para Nos. 16, 17 & 18) : “16. Even under these circumstances the assessee claims that there is no concealment on his part and penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

6. . . . .the assessee had concealed particulars of this income in the original return, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are initiated.” Extracts from Penalty order : (Para Nos. 16, 17 & 18) : “16. Even under these circumstances the assessee claims that there is no concealment on his part and penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

6. . . . .the assessee had concealed particulars of this income in the original return, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are initiated.” Extracts from Penalty order : (Para Nos. 16, 17 & 18) : “16. Even under these circumstances the assessee claims that there is no concealment on his part and penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied

AMAN CHHOTE VYAPARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,,ICHALKRANJI vs. आयकर अधिकारी, वार्ड - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 144/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Gala No.61, 62 & 63, Weekly Market, Ichalkaranji. Pan: Aabta0044M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Ichalkaranji ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

section 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of assessee on 18.05.2005. Accordingly, in response to notice u/s 153A(a) of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.32,630/- on 24.10.2005. Finally, assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(b) of the Act was completed on 31.12.2007 by making various additions

AMAN CHHOTE VYAPARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,,ICHALKRANJI vs. आयकर अधिकारी, वार्ड - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 144/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Gala No.61, 62 & 63, Weekly Market, Ichalkaranji. Pan: Aabta0044M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Ichalkaranji ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

section 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of assessee on 18.05.2005. Accordingly, in response to notice u/s 153A(a) of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.32,630/- on 24.10.2005. Finally, assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(b) of the Act was completed on 31.12.2007 by making various additions

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

43,78,000/- taxed u/s 69C of the Act, alongwith unexplained ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 407 to 408 & 410/PUN/2024 sundry creditors of ₹3,57,81,700/- offered to tax by the assessee u/s 41(1) of the Act and other two additions made by the Ld. AO while culminating

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

43,78,000/- taxed u/s 69C of the Act, alongwith unexplained ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 407 to 408 & 410/PUN/2024 sundry creditors of ₹3,57,81,700/- offered to tax by the assessee u/s 41(1) of the Act and other two additions made by the Ld. AO while culminating

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

43,78,000/- taxed u/s 69C of the Act, alongwith unexplained ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 407 to 408 & 410/PUN/2024 sundry creditors of ₹3,57,81,700/- offered to tax by the assessee u/s 41(1) of the Act and other two additions made by the Ld. AO while culminating

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,JALGAON vs. THE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 296/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt Taradevi R Bafna 91, Subhash Chow, Jalgaon. Pan : Aadpb9424E . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Nasik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/10/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Challenged Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-12), Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/07/2018 For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 28/06/2017 Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-1(3), Nasik [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271Aab Of The Act.

43,810/- by filing original return of income [for short “ITR”] incorporating an additional income ₹28,00,00,000/- declared during the survey action and ₹4,83,89,485/- during search action u/s 132 of the Act, which eventually trigged the penalty provision u/s 271AAB of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 11 Smt Taradevi R Bafna ITA No.296/PUN/2020