PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

220 were received. The letter dated 02/09/2022 came out of the blue 2. Levy u/s 234E came info force from 01.06.2015. It was not retrospective but proscriptive. It was only after the receipt of the letter dated 02/09/2022 that the Appellant went to the traces site and realized that levy for late filing of return u/s 234 had been charged

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

220 were received. The letter dated 02/09/2022 came out of the blue 2. Levy u/s 234E came info force from 01.06.2015. It was not retrospective but proscriptive. It was only after the receipt of the letter dated 02/09/2022 that the Appellant went to the traces site and realized that levy for late filing of return u/s 234 had been charged

SHARAD BHASKARRAO GAIKWAD,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sharad Bhaskarrao The Income Tax Officer, Gaikwad, V Nashik. T No.1, Vanai Apartment, S Gangapur Road, Behind Kulswamini Apartment, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri Sourabho Nayak – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 02.05.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.02.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A]

220/-. Submission of ld.AR : 3. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee submitted that assessee was misguided by the ITP i.e.Mr.Kishore Patil. The ITP had filed the Return of Income making wrong claims. Assessee and other employees had lodged police complaint against Mr.Kishore Patil. In the revised return of income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, Assessee

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

220/- 1,44,27,092/- 70,50,872/- 2010-11 2,57,21,478/- 5,03,08,440/- 2,45,86,962/- 2011-12 3,95,75,541/- 7,74,05,494/- 3,78,29,953/- 2012-13 6,70,456/- 13,11,340/- 6,40,884/- Total

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

220/- 1,44,27,092/- 70,50,872/- 2010-11 2,57,21,478/- 5,03,08,440/- 2,45,86,962/- 2011-12 3,95,75,541/- 7,74,05,494/- 3,78,29,953/- 2012-13 6,70,456/- 13,11,340/- 6,40,884/- Total

M/S. SHANTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, RATNAIRI

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 374 & 375/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 M/S Shanti Construction Company Ram Lane, Ratnagiri. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Abhfs1628N बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward-2, Ratnagiri. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee. Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Two Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/01/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Separate Orders Of Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ratnagiri [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 26/12/2011 & 11/09/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) & 220(2) Respectively, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 1999-2000. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

reassessment or re-computation pursuant to direction u/s 254 is governed by the provisions of section 153(3) of the Act, which reads as; (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), an order fresh assessment in pursuance of any order under section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment

M/S. SHANTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, RATNAGIRI

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 374 & 375/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 M/S Shanti Construction Company Ram Lane, Ratnagiri. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Abhfs1628N बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward-2, Ratnagiri. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee. Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Two Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/01/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Separate Orders Of Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ratnagiri [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 26/12/2011 & 11/09/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) & 220(2) Respectively, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 1999-2000. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

reassessment or re-computation pursuant to direction u/s 254 is governed by the provisions of section 153(3) of the Act, which reads as; (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), an order fresh assessment in pursuance of any order under section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour

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

220/- was attributable to cash withdrawn from Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. from time to time and thereafter the said cash was deposited in the same Bank Account and Rs.1,00,000/- was received by cheque from Sunil R Pawar and rejected by the Assessing Officer even during the remand proceedings. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case

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

220/- was attributable to cash withdrawn from Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. from time to time and thereafter the said cash was deposited in the same Bank Account and Rs.1,00,000/- was received by cheque from Sunil R Pawar and rejected by the Assessing Officer even during the remand proceedings. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. KUVAWALA DRILL EQUIP,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, HQ-6(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

220 (Delhi). In Section 147 of the Act, the pre-requisite condition which can be said to be sine-qua nonest is that the Assessing Officer has „reason to believe‟ that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This has been held by the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex

M/S. KUVAWALA DRILL EQUIP,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, HQ-6(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

220 (Delhi). In Section 147 of the Act, the pre-requisite condition which can be said to be sine-qua nonest is that the Assessing Officer has „reason to believe‟ that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This has been held by the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. ABHAYRAJ FATTEHRAJ CHORDIYA, C/O LAXMI OIL MIL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

220 (SC) iii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT (2023) 46 taxmann.com 553 (Kar) iv) PCIT vs. Umesh Ishrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 31. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his yet another plank of argument submitted that no documentary evidence was provided along with notice issued u/s 153C of the Act. It was only during the course

CRYSTAL PLYWOOD PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1737/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Crystal Plywood Pvt. Ltd., 1220/47, E-Ward, Rajarampuri, First Lane, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416001 …. Pan: Aaacc7874M Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur

reassess the income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. Section 153A of the Act requires that a notice be issued to the person sought to be assessed, calling upon the said assessee to file his return of income in respect of each year falling within the specified six AYs. It is further

M/S KARIA BUILDERS ,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karia Builders Ito, Ward 14(3), Pune 402, Konark Indrayu, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune – 411048 Pan: Aadfk5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 O R D E R

220 TTJ 625 (Gauj) iii) B.R. Bamasi vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bom) iv) P.V. Doshi vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 22 (Guj) 15. He submitted that once such assessment is considered as invalid, then the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act cannot be sustained. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions