PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

68 in respect of share application money received from non-existent subscribers, was to be set aside. 3.2.3 Since the taxation of the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- u/s.153A of the Act itself does not have legal basis, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levied in respect of this amount is bad in law. 3.3 While dealing with

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

68 in respect of share application money received from non-existent subscribers, was to be set aside. 3.2.3 Since the taxation of the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- u/s.153A of the Act itself does not have legal basis, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levied in respect of this amount is bad in law. 3.3 While dealing with

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

68 in respect of share application money received from non-existent subscribers, was to be set aside. 3.2.3 Since the taxation of the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- u/s.153A of the Act itself does not have legal basis, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levied in respect of this amount is bad in law. 3.3 While dealing with

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

68 in respect of share application money received from non-existent subscribers, was to be set aside. 3.2.3 Since the taxation of the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- u/s.153A of the Act itself does not have legal basis, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levied in respect of this amount is bad in law. 3.3 While dealing with

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

68 in respect of share application money received from non-existent subscribers, was to be set aside. 3.2.3 Since the taxation of the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- u/s.153A of the Act itself does not have legal basis, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levied in respect of this amount is bad in law. 3.3 While dealing with

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

68 in respect of share application money received from non-existent subscribers, was to be set aside. 3.2.3 Since the taxation of the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- u/s.153A of the Act itself does not have legal basis, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levied in respect of this amount is bad in law. 3.3 While dealing with

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

68 in respect of share application money received from non-existent subscribers, was to be set aside. 3.2.3 Since the taxation of the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- u/s.153A of the Act itself does not have legal basis, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levied in respect of this amount is bad in law. 3.3 While dealing with

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

68 in respect of share application money received from non-existent subscribers, was to be set aside. 3.2.3 Since the taxation of the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- u/s.153A of the Act itself does not have legal basis, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levied in respect of this amount is bad in law. 3.3 While dealing with

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

section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence and the contents of the report of the Investigation\ncarried out in paras

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

section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence and the contents of the report of the Investigation\ncarried out in paras