PRADEEP JANARDHAN SAKHARE,SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(A), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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.2509/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Janardhan Sakhare, Ito, Ward – 1(1), Ashay Regency, Flat No. 9, Aurangabad New Vishal Nagar, Chh. Sambhajinagar, Vs. Maharashtra-431001 Pan : Bobps8283M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual) Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of 18-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. For Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.3,17,830/-. Based On The Information Received From The Insight Portal Under „High Risk Criu/Vru Information‟, It Was Found That The Assessee Has Done Transaction In Crypto Currency Of Rs.38,54,500/-, The Source Of Which Requires Verification & Also There Were Unexplained Credit Entries Aggregating To Rs.40,44,044/-. As The Assessee Failed To Disclose The Above Transaction In The Itr Filed For The Ay 2018-19, The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Had Reason To Believe That The Above Income In Ay 2018-19 Has Escaped Assessment. Accordingly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) Dated 07.04.2022. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 09.06.2023. Statutory Notice(S) U/S 142(1) & 144 Were Then Issued To The Assessee. As The Assessee Failed To File Any Compliance

investments in crypto currency u/s 69B and credit entries of RS.40,44,044/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, to the returned income of Rs.3,17,830/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the aforesaid additions made by the Ld. AO. The assessee also raised a legal ground before

MR. ANANDA KONDU AKHADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 9(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

unexplained investment and also rejected the explanation about income of current year and accumulated funds. The Ld.AO also did not accept the agriculture income of Rs.49,520/- and made an addition of the same as income from other sources. The Ld. AO therefore completed the reassessment

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

unexplained investment made in cash for assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18. 9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

unexplained investment made in cash for assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18. 9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

unexplained investment made in cash for assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18. 9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

unexplained investment made in cash for assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18. 9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

unexplained investment made in cash for assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18. 9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

unexplained investment made in cash for assessment year\n2016-17. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18.\n\n9.\nIn appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing\nOfficer by observing as under:\n\n\"4.2.1\nI have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the\nappellant

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

unexplained investment made in cash for assessment year\n2016-17. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18.\n9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing\nOfficer by observing as under:\n\"4.2.1\nI have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the\nappellant. The findings made

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

unexplained investment made in cash for assessment year\n2016-17. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18.\n9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing\nOfficer by observing as under:\n\"4.2.1\nI have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the\nappellant. The findings made

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

unexplained investment made in cash for assessment year\n2016-17. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18.\n9.\nIn appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing\nOfficer by observing as under:\n\"4.2.1\nI have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the\nappellant. The findings made

SAURABH JAYANT BHAGA,RAIGAD PANVEL vs. ITO WARD-1, PANVEL

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2717 & 2718/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, The Income Tax Officer, A-806, Balaji Aangan, Nr. S T V Panvel. Depot, Panvel Raigad–410206. S. Maharashtra. Pan: Aklpb9996P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Date 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Without Communicating The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment.

reassessment proceedings without communicating the reason for reopening of assessment. ITA Nos.2717 & 2718/PUN/2024 [A] 2) The Honorable Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 53,14,000/- u/s 69 on account of alleged unexplained investment

SAURABH JAYANT BHAGAT,PANVEL RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO PANVEL

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2717 & 2718/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, The Income Tax Officer, A-806, Balaji Aangan, Nr. S T V Panvel. Depot, Panvel Raigad–410206. S. Maharashtra. Pan: Aklpb9996P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Date 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Without Communicating The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment.

reassessment proceedings without communicating the reason for reopening of assessment. ITA Nos.2717 & 2718/PUN/2024 [A] 2) The Honorable Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 53,14,000/- u/s 69 on account of alleged unexplained investment

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

Unexplained Investments. 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered

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

Unexplained Investments. 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered

LALITA RAMESH JAIN,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PRADHIKARAN PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

investments u/s 69 and (ii) addition u/s 68 at Rs.5,43,000/- for unexplained credits. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and did not file her return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11. Based on the information about the transaction of immovable property in the name of the assessee, the assessee was served with

NAVJYOTI FARMING PRIVATE LIMITED,BELAPUR vs. ITO, WARD -3 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

reassessment proceedings and issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 2 That the order dated 28.03.2024 passed u/s 250 of the "Act" by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward -3 Panvel

ASKARI INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

investment in 4 residential units is from unexplained and unsubstantiated sources, is premised on surmises and conjectures. Indeed, if only the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] had understood and appreciated the fact that the reduction in the amount receivable from the Rajeev Bhale Group was tantamount to recovery of the amount owed by the Rajeev Bhale Group