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:

69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act since these are professional receipts. He, however, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting as per the provisions of section 270A(9)(e) of the Act. While doing so, he observed that the revised return filed by the assessee on 30.06.2020 is (a) beyond the due date

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.

69A subject to special rate of tax u/s 115BEE and also other additions amounting in all to Rs.64,65,000/-. The Assessing Officer in the above assessment order also initiated penalty u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC(1) of the IT Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the above assessment order and Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 partly allowed the appeal

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

69A of the Act for unexplained money. ITA No. 2112/PUN/2025 is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 71,75,281/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We note that the assessee is an individual and in the reassessment proceedings carried out by Ld. AO based on the information about cash deposit in saving bank account with

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

69A of the Act for unexplained money. ITA No. 2112/PUN/2025 is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 71,75,281/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We note that the assessee is an individual and in the reassessment proceedings carried out by Ld. AO based on the information about cash deposit in saving bank account with

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69A of the Act provides for no relief on account of addition made under that section towards excess cash, jewellery or valuable article, etc., the provisions of section 69B do not put forth any such restrictions. 4. However, the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He referred to the provisions of section 115BBE

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69A of the Act provides for no relief on account of addition made under that section towards excess cash, jewellery or valuable article, etc., the provisions of section 69B do not put forth any such restrictions. 4. However, the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He referred to the provisions of section 115BBE

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69A of the Act provides for no relief on account of addition made under that section towards excess cash, jewellery or valuable article, etc., the provisions of section 69B do not put forth any such restrictions. 4. However, the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He referred to the provisions of section 115BBE

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69A of the Act provides for no relief on account of addition made under that section towards excess cash, jewellery or valuable article, etc., the provisions of section 69B do not put forth any such restrictions. 4. However, the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He referred to the provisions of section 115BBE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69A of the Act provides for no relief on account of addition made under that section towards excess cash, jewellery or valuable article, etc., the provisions of section 69B do not put forth any such restrictions. 4. However, the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He referred to the provisions of section 115BBE

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

69A of the Act read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income of the assessee. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re- assessment proceedings holding that the proper course of action before the Assessing Officer should have been u/s 153C of the Act. He also deleted the addition on merit by holding that the said addition

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

69A of the Act read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income of the assessee. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re- assessment proceedings holding that the proper course of action before the Assessing Officer should have been u/s 153C of the Act. He also deleted the addition on merit by holding that the said addition

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

69A of the Act read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income of the assessee. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re- assessment proceedings holding that the proper course of action before the Assessing Officer should have been u/s 153C of the Act. He also deleted the addition on merit by holding that the said addition

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

69A of the Act read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income of the assessee. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re- assessment proceedings holding that the proper course of action before the Assessing Officer should have been u/s 153C of the Act. He also deleted the addition on merit by holding that the said addition

BHASKAR RAJARAM THORAT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of different assessment orders dated 17.05.2025 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 14.12.2023 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2 ITA.Nos.2300 & 2302/PUN./2025 (Bhaskar Rajaram Thorat) 2. The sole grievance

BHASKAR RAJARAM THORAT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of different assessment orders dated 17.05.2025 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 14.12.2023 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2 ITA.Nos.2300 & 2302/PUN./2025 (Bhaskar Rajaram Thorat) 2. The sole grievance

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

69A of the\nAct read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income\nof the assessee. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re-\nassessment proceedings holding that the proper course of action\nbefore the Assessing Officer should have been u/s 153C of the\nAct. He also deleted the addition on merit by holding that the\nsaid addition

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

69A of the\nAct read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income\nof the assessee. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re-\nassessment proceedings holding that the proper course of action\nbefore the Assessing Officer should have been u/s 153C of the\nAct. He also deleted the addition on merit by holding that the\nsaid addition

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

69A of the Act and unexplained interest income. It is found that the assessment order has been passed u/s 144 as a best judgement assessment order. The assessment order states that many opportunities were provided to the assessee to furnish replies & written submissions. The details of such opportunities are also mentioned in the body of the assessment order

SWAMINI MAHILA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2533/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Swamini Mahila Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha S. Ward-12(3), Pune. Maryadit, Survey No.272, Sainagar Gourav Bunglow, Lohagaon, Near Uttareshwar Mandir, Pune – 411047. Pan: Aakas1168G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16, Dated 19.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144B Of The

section 69A cannot be applied simultaneously The addition may kindly be deleted Levy of tax U/s 115BBE 10. The Ld. AO erred in levying tax U/s 115BBE 4 ITA No.2533/PUN/2025 [A] Initiation of penalty 11. The Ld. AO erred in initiation penalty 271