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

220(2) respectively, for assessment year [for short “AY”] 1999-2000. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 16 M/s Shanti Construction Company ITA No. 374 & 375/PUN/2020 AY: 1999-200 2. Since the one of legal issue involved in these two appeals is identical, with the agreement of both the parties, the matter is heard together for a consolidated order, resultantly

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

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

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

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

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b)\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested

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

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

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b)\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other

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

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n\n(b)\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates

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

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2.\nOn the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested

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

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested

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

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other

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

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other

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

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other

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