VIJAYMALA VILAS KALOKHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-10(1), PUNE

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.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

50C works out to be Rs. 2,63,83,209/- in the above transaction, Assessee has not offered any Capital Gain on Rs. 2,63,83,209/- in her return of income filed for A.Y. 2013-14. Further, the assessee has also not brought on record whether he/she has fulfilled the conditions as laid down u/s 2

SUNIL HARRIRAM KRIPLANI,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Issue notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for re-opening the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10.” 3. From the above, ld. AR submitted that the failure to file the return of income and failure to follow the provisions of section 50C of the Act are the issues for which notice u/s

RAJKUMAR RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

147 of the I T Act. (c) The condition requires for initiation of proceedings u/s.147/148 are not fulfilled, as per ratio laid down in the decisions relied by the appellant as mentioned on page 13 of the appellate order. In view of the above, finding of the CIT(A) may be vacated and assessment based upon such illegal notice

SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

147 of the I T Act. (c) The condition requires for initiation of proceedings u/s.147/148 are not fulfilled, as per ratio laid down in the decisions relied by the appellant as mentioned on page 13 of the appellate order. In view of the above, finding of the CIT(A) may be vacated and assessment based upon such illegal notice

SUSHILKUMAR KASTURCHAND BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

147 of the I T Act. (c) The condition requires for initiation of proceedings u/s.147/148 are not fulfilled, as per ratio laid down in the decisions relied by the appellant as mentioned on page 13 of the appellate order. In view of the above, finding of the CIT(A) may be vacated and assessment based upon such illegal notice

BHARAT EKNATH KANPILE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshali

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 being initiated in absence of material showing escapement of income in the hands of the appellant is void and may kindly be cancelled. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.16,01,000/- in respect of Gat no.357/18 as cash consideration received purely on the basis of statement

ASARAM SHANKAR PERKAR,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent mentioned above and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

2 ITA No. 2704/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 (Khandoba), Aurangabad admeasuring 40 R for consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- and had offered the gain on sale of land under the head Capital Gains. In reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer took Government valuation i.e. Rs.51,75,000/- as sale value of land. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C