ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

justice is liable to be deleted. Ground No. 4 stands allowed in\nfavour of appellant.\n\n9. Even on merit also, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC allowed the claim of deduction\nu/s 10(38) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under:\n\nAddition of Rs 7,68,24,174 under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

natural justice which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has examined\nthoroughly and deleted the addition for such violation. We, therefore, uphold the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue also.\n\n63. Even otherwise also, we find during the 153A assessment proceedings the\nAssessing Officer had specifically asked regarding the exempt long term capital\ngain to which

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

natural Justice by deliberately not intimating the defect in Form 35 (Column 12) during the entire appellate proceedings spanning nearly three years and then invoking this very defect as grounds to dismiss the appeal in the final order, thereby denying the appellant any opportunity to rectify the inadvertent error. This approach clearly demonstrates that the procedural defect was used merely

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

natural Justice by deliberately not intimating the defect in Form 35 (Column 12) during the entire appellate proceedings spanning nearly three years and then invoking this very defect as grounds to dismiss the appeal in the final order, thereby denying the appellant any opportunity to rectify the inadvertent error. This approach clearly demonstrates that the procedural defect was used merely

ASHOK HIRACHAND SHAH,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.812/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Hirachand Shah, Assessing Officer, Plot No. 4, Mangal Bunglow, Ward – 2, Panvel Road No. 5, Sector No. 19, Vs. New Panvel, Tal.-Panvel-410206 Pan : Acdps4800M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of 17-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Denial Of Natural Justice & Proper Opportunity The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Appellant Was Denied Proper Opportunity & Natural Justice During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Called For Information At The Far End Of The Assessment Proceedings On 19/11/2018 & Despite The Appellant'S Authorized Representative Submitting The Details On 19/12/2018, The Ao Failed To Discuss Or Consider The Same. The Matter Ought To Have Been Remanded Back For Fresh Adjudication To Allow Proper Analysis Of The Transactions. 2. Addition Without Specifying The Section The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- Made By The Ao Without Specifying The Section Under Which The Addition Was Made. The Non-Mention Of The Specific Section Renders The Assessment Order Bad In Law, As It Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice & Transparency In Taxation. 3. Failure To Discharge Onus Under Section 69A

natural justice and fair adjudication.” 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual. For the AY 2011-12, he did not file his return of income. Based on AIR information, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that during the relevant AY 2011-12 the assessee has deposited the amount aggregating to Rs.1

SACHIN SHANTILAL KHIWANSARA,BEED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2288/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, V The Income Tax Officer, Main Road, Shirur Kasar, S. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Shirur So., Beed, Beed – 413249. Pan: Bytpk1339N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurabh D.Khivansara Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 17.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That On Facts & In Law, The Ex-Parte Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals, Nfac Is Opposed To Law & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Accordingly The Impugned Appellate Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

justice 4. That in making an addition of Rs. 1,03,86,725/- us 69A without considering withdrawals and the nature of business transactions, the procedure followed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, and the addition as made by the assessing authority as sustained by the CIT APPEALS is unjustified, arbitrary, and deserves to be deleted. 5. That

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

justice and non-application of mind on the part of Ld. AO while dealing with imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 4. Both the parties laid their rival contentions and after hearing them at a length, we have perused the case records in the light of rule 18 of ITAT, Rules 1963 and freezed the following undisputed facts

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

justice and non-application of mind on the part of Ld. AO while dealing with imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 4. Both the parties laid their rival contentions and after hearing them at a length, we have perused the case records in the light of rule 18 of ITAT, Rules 1963 and freezed the following undisputed facts

SUNIL SHRIRANG PAWAR,SATARA vs. ITO WARD 2 SATARA , SATARA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

natural justice. 3) The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Apart from aforesaid grounds of appeal in Form No.36 assessee has also raised following common additional grounds of appeal in the four assessment years under consideration

SUNIL SHRIRANG PAWAR,SATARA vs. ITO WARD 2 SATARA, SATARA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

natural justice. 3) The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Apart from aforesaid grounds of appeal in Form No.36 assessee has also raised following common additional grounds of appeal in the four assessment years under consideration

SUNIL SHRIRANG PAWAR,SATARA vs. ITO WARD 2 SATARA, SATARA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

natural justice. 3) The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Apart from aforesaid grounds of appeal in Form No.36 assessee has also raised following common additional grounds of appeal in the four assessment years under consideration

SUNIL SHRIRANG PAWAR,SATARA vs. ITO WARD 2 SATARA, SATARA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

natural justice. 3) The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Apart from aforesaid grounds of appeal in Form No.36 assessee has also raised following common additional grounds of appeal in the four assessment years under consideration

SHRIKANT CHANDRAKANT LOKHANDE,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2696/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

natural justice are integral to the tax assessment process. The Court emphasized that "the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any addition is made to his income." GROUND No.II That the Appellate Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax thereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)" is highly illegal

DARSHAN SAMPATLALJI GATAGAT,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Reassessment The Learned AO failed to provide the appellant with the reasons recorded for issuing the notice under Section 148 during the assessment proceedings. This omission deprived the appellant of the opportunity to challenge the proceedings at an appropriate stage, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

DARSHAN SAMPATLALJI GATAGAT,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Reassessment The Learned AO failed to provide the appellant with the reasons recorded for issuing the notice under Section 148 during the assessment proceedings. This omission deprived the appellant of the opportunity to challenge the proceedings at an appropriate stage, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

MANDA SHANTARAM GARADE,TALEGAON DABHADE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(3), AKURDI

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1343/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Manda Shantaram Garade, V The Assessing Officer, 66, Dhamane Gavthan, Near S Ward-9(3), Pune. Padmavati Mandir, Talegaon, Maharashtra – 410506. Pan: Bjcpg4762K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi(Virtual), Aadnya Bhandari(Present In Itat Pune Bench) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal 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 Dated 26.03.2025 For The A.Y.2019-20 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act

REASSESSMENT: 1.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre ["Ld. CIT(A)" for short) erred in confirming the re-assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act" for short] passed by the Learned Income Tax Officer-9 (3), Pune

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

natural justice and all other known principles of law. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 59,97,858/- made by the AO by invoking provisions of section 69A of the Act as alleged unexplained cash deposits. 7. In the facts and circumstances

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO - WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

natural justice and all other known principles of law. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 59,97,858/- made by the AO by invoking provisions of section 69A of the Act as alleged unexplained cash deposits. 7. In the facts and circumstances