JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

deposits was commission income earned from the business of supply of Agriculture Equipment, a business inherently conducted in cash. The appellant submits that the addition of Rs.32,25,000 has been made without due consideration of the nature of the business, rendering the addition arbitrary and unsustainable. 4. The Learned AO erred in law and on facts in initiating reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , LATUR vs. VIMAL JAYDEV ARYA, LATUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

cash deposit made by the assessee in his account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society Credit Ltd. The explanation of the assessee that he has maintained books of account and got the accounts audited under the provisions of the Act and that being a commission agent he used to receive advance from the customers

MR. ABRAR FAKIRMOHMMAD SHAIKH,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.208/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Abrar Fakirmohmmad Vs. Ito (International Shaikh, Taxation), Nashik. At Manakeshwar, North Solapur, Tal. Bhoom, Barshi, Solapur- 413213. Pan : Chfps0191E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual & Non-Resident Indian In Terms Of Income-Tax Purpose. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed On 05.07.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,85,740/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, No Scrutiny Assessment Was Made. Subsequently, On Receipt Of The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.1,20,40,000/- With Solapur District Co- Operative Central Bank, The Assessing Officer Formed An Opinion That The Income Had Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Had Issued A Notice U/S 148 On 31.03.2021. In Response To Said Notice U/S 148, The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income On 03.04.2021 Disclosing Same Income As Declared In The Original Return Of Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 20.12.2022 Passed U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs.1,23,98,740/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs.1,21,80,000/- Being The Amount Of Cash Deposits In The Bank I.E. Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,20,40,000/- Made With Solapur District Co-

cash deposits under the provisions of section 5 69A of the Act and passed a draft assessment order u/s 144C of the Act vide order dated 30.03.2022. On receipt of the draft assessment order, the appellant filed the objections before the DRP contending that the validity of the initiation of reassessment

VIKAS MARUTI NALAWADE,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 737/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikas Maruti Nalawade, Ito, Ward-1, Sangli Vikas Hitech Nursary, Sangli Islampur Road, Near Sootgirni Vs. Tung, Sangli-416301 Maharashtra Pan-Alppn6432M अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By: Shri Amit Bobde-Cit Date Of Hearing: 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-12-2025 आदीश /Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.03.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 29.03.2022. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The 2 Assessment Order, Having Being Passed Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice, As Narrated In The Statement Of Facts, The Same Is Bad In Law & Hence Needs To Be Quashed.

deposit in current bank account/saving bank account/purchase of motor vehicle/payment to Contractor and cash withdrawal from current account, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for carrying out the reassessment

SUBHASH RUNWAL,BIBWEWADI, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

reassessment jurisdiction cash deposit was not only the sole issue but also the interest income undisclosed by the assessee. The notice

SANTOSH CHANDRAHAS WAGHCHAURE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD14(5), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.325/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Santosh Chandrahas V The Income Tax Officer, Waghchaure, S Ward-14(5), Pune. House No.641, Waghchaure Building, Indreshwar Nagar, Indapur, Pune – 413106. Pan: Abqpw7868K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

cash deposit in said bank and the initiation of reassessment proceedings based on this incorrect fact not sustainable. Hence reassessment

MRS. ARCHANA ANIL CHECHANI,JALNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings several notices were issued to the assessee requesting the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash deposits

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

cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that

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

cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that

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

cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that

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

cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that

VIJAYKUMAR MANGILALJI CHORDIYA,NASHIK vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2013-14

deposited cash of Rs.3,16,38,294/- in M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Credit Society Ltd. in which search and seizure operation was carried out on 26.05.2017, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, reasons 9 of which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the assessee through the additional ground that since

M/S SUNIL CHETNDAS KATARIYA, HUF,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sunil Chetandas Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Nashik. Katariya, 649, Sai Villa, Lam Road, Deolali Camp, Nashik- 422401. Pan : Aaths6634R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [‘Pcit’] Dated 12.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit Erred In Holding That The Asst. Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 In The Case Of The Assessee For A.Y.2011 - 12 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby

reassessment proceedings were initiated in order to verify the source for cash deposits in the bank account. The Assessing Officer

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

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

cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment\nproceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of\nknowing that

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

cash deposit of Rs.53,13,000/- in bank accounts of the appellant during the F.Y.2012-13, relevant to the A.Y.2013-14. But, the appellant is not fled the Return of income for the A.Y.2013-14. Therefore, after obtaining due approval, the AO, had initiated reassessment

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

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

cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment\nproceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of\nknowing that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. ATUL ASHOK PARAKH, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

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

cash deposit made and detailed ledger extract of the Society along with narration were submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”). 6. The explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who treated the amount of Rs.2,07,42,724/- as unexplained money and added the same to the income of the assessee

SONU GOMA BHANGALE,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(1) JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

reassessment order dated 22/12/2017 became subject\nmatter of revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. Ld.PCIT\nvide order dated 30/03/2020 has given directions to the\nLd.AO for carrying out necessary verification of the source of\nalleged cash deposit