PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

unexplained and addition made by AO to that extent is upheld.” There is no material on record to contradict the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised in appeal by assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 20. The ground No. 5 raised of appeal is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

unexplained and addition made by AO to that extent is upheld.” There is no material on record to contradict the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised in appeal by assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 20. The ground No. 5 raised of appeal is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication

MR VIKAS JAYRAM BHUKAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

u/s 271(1)(c) is not in accordance with the provisions of the act. Accordingly, the penalty so levied be kindly deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and as per provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') it be kindly held that the quantum addition so made is incorrect and accordingly the penalty proceedings

ANIL SHANTILAL GANDHI,,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

unexplained investment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted part relief of 5 kg silverware to the assessee and confirmed the addition of 22.2 kg silverware. Taking into consideration the living standard, customs etc. of the assessee’s family, confirmed the addition of remaining 22.2 kg. After taking into consideration entire facts we are of considered view that the findings

ANIL SHANTILAL GANDHI,,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

unexplained investment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted part relief of 5 kg silverware to the assessee and confirmed the addition of 22.2 kg silverware. Taking into consideration the living standard, customs etc. of the assessee’s family, confirmed the addition of remaining 22.2 kg. After taking into consideration entire facts we are of considered view that the findings

SUNIL TUKARAM ZAMBARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

investment remained unexplained without appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) while confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 15,38,496/- had erred in not appreciating the following important facts that: a) The appellant had filed a revised return and offered additional income, which constitutes a voluntary and bonafide

SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI HUF,PUNE vs. ITO, JALNA, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Accordingly

SHIVRATAN MOTILALJI RATHI HUF,PUNE vs. ITO, JALNA, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Accordingly

SMT. VIMALABEN B.PATEL,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -5, , PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

unexplained investment. As the assessee has concealed his income to the above effect, therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are separately