GEETANJALI ANIL KANKREJ,KOPARGAON vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1104/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Geetanjali Anil Kankrej, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, M/S. Kishor Wines, Jadhav Ahmednagar. Building, Dharangaon Road, Tal. Kopargaon- 423109. Pan : Agxpk9352L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Valid In Law In Absence Of Reason To Believe That Any Income Has Escaped Assessment When The Ld Ao Himself States That Notice U/S 148 Is Issued To Verify & Make Enquiry

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 valid in law in absence of any tangible material to indicate any escapement of income in the hands of the appellant. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld AO having accepted the fact that cash deposit in bank account has been duly disclosed and return of income being duly filed, the reopening

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961. 11. Final assessment u/s 115BBC-As against the firm belief till 29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019, has taxed the donations of Rs. 1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations' u/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961. Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961. 11. Final assessment u/s 115BBC-As against the firm belief till 29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019, has taxed the donations of Rs. 1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations' u/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961. Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961. 11. Final assessment u/s 115BBC-As against the firm belief till 29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019, has taxed the donations of Rs. 1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations' u/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961. Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

unexplained sources u/s 68 of the Act, 1961. Accordingly, an amount\nof Rs.2,79,78,912/- is added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of\nincome.\"\n5.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime,\nthe Ld. PCIT examined

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

unexplained sources u/s 68 of the Act, 1961. Accordingly, an amount\nof Rs.2,79,78,912/- is added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of\nincome.\"\n5.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime,\nthe Ld. PCIT examined

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

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

unexplained money.\n5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was\nfiled before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC\nupheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-\n“4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was\nsent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of\nthe bank

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

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

unexplained money.\n5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was\nfiled before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC\nupheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-\n“4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was\nsent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of\nthe bank

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

unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was sent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of the bank account

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

unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was sent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of the bank account

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

unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was sent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of the bank account

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

unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was sent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of the bank account

RAJESH BABURAO SHINDE,PARBHANI vs. ITO, WARD- HINGOLI, HINGOLI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Sayala Khating, Tq. Dist. Tax Department, Nfac, Parbhani- 431402. Delhi. Pan : Czcps6546Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After

reassessment proceedings. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 and the consequential assessment order passed is illegal and deserves to be quashed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 2. THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151A 2.1 The Ld. JAO has erred in assuming the jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s 148 which is in non-compliance

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. NARENDRA SAMPATLAL BAFNA, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the addition made of Rs.6,20,00,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act on account of unexplained cash loans availed from various parties through Sh. Sachin M. Nahar. All these grounds of appeal are taken up together for adjudication. An analysis of letter No.Pn/DCIT. Cen. Cir.1(1)/Sharing

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. ATUL ASHOK PARAKH, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

unexplained money and added back the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. 6. A show cause notice dated 23.03.2022 with a copy of draft assessment order was sent to the assessee requiring him to furnish reply or raise objection, if any, in respect of addition proposed u/s 69 of the Act as stated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which