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

147 r.ws 144 of the ITA, 1961, by treating cash deposited in bank accounts, amount of Rs.32,25,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the ITA 1961, without appreciating the nature and source of the deposits and the evidences submitted by the appellant. 2. Appellant contends that, the learned IT authorities erred in facts in considering transactions in account

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-

reassessment proceedings, confirmed the addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits by holding that the appellant was not able to prove the sources of money in the bank from which the cash was withdrawn and the reasons for withdrawal of substantial cash from one account and deposit in another account. The appellant had also failed to provide the evidence

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) after obtaining the approval of the competent authority. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 asking the assessee to file the return of income, in response thereto. The assessee however, did not file any return in response to the said notice

RAVINDRA PURUSHOTTAM BIROLE(HUF),PUNE vs. ITO WARD-5(5), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2013 & 2014/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010- 11 &2011-12 Ravindra Purushottam The Income Tax Officer, Birole(Huf), Vs Ward-5(5), Pune. 2055, Sadashiv Peth, Anant Residency, 1St Floor, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aadhb 8563 J Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune, Dated 30.10.2019For The Ay 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment proceedings are valid on the ground that the copy of the reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act was provided and the appellant has accepted that the reasons were provided in their submissions dt. 11.10.2019, which is factually incorrect. ITA No’s.2013 &2014/PUN/2019 for A.Y.2010-11 & 11-12 Ravindra Purushottam Birole (HUF) (A) 2. The learned

RAVINDRA PURUSHOTTAM BIROLE(HUF),PUNE vs. ITO WARD-5(5), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2013 & 2014/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010- 11 &2011-12 Ravindra Purushottam The Income Tax Officer, Birole(Huf), Vs Ward-5(5), Pune. 2055, Sadashiv Peth, Anant Residency, 1St Floor, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aadhb 8563 J Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune, Dated 30.10.2019For The Ay 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment proceedings are valid on the ground that the copy of the reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act was provided and the appellant has accepted that the reasons were provided in their submissions dt. 11.10.2019, which is factually incorrect. ITA No’s.2013 &2014/PUN/2019 for A.Y.2010-11 & 11-12 Ravindra Purushottam Birole (HUF) (A) 2. The learned

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 proceedings u/s 147

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

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 of which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the assessee through the additional ground that since the information

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

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 of which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the assessee through the additional ground that since the information

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

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 of which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the assessee through the additional ground that since the information

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

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 of which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the assessee through the additional ground that since the information

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

u/s 147 of the Act to tax any other income. In the instance case, we observed that, while recording the reasons for invocation of reassessment jurisdiction the Ld. AO had information from AIR which explicitly spelt-out two items viz; (1) cash deposits

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

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

reassessment\nproceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of\nknowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This\nattitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated that he had evaded tax by\nnot filing the return of income within the due date specified u/s 139(1)\nof the IT Act and also after receipt of notice u/s

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

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

reassessment\nproceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of\nknowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This\nattitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated that he had evaded tax by\nnot filing the return of income within the due date specified u/s 139(1)\nof the IT Act and also after receipt of notice u/s

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

147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 09.06.2016. During the course of reassessment proceedings several notices were issued to the assessee requesting the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash deposits

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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 : 2017-18

deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso

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

147 by issuing of notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2018. In 3 response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 30.06.2018 declaring income of Rs.80,503/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nashik (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 24.12.2018 accepting the returned

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 proceedings u/s. 147

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