JAYDEEP PUKHRAJ JAIN,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1358/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Jaydeep Pukhraj Jain, The Income Tax Officer, ‘White House’ 182, Sadashiv Vs Ward-3(2), Pune. Peth Pune, Pune – 411030. . Pan: Afapj 9915 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 28.02.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)- 4/Ito, Ward 3(2), Pune/344, 2014-15/758, In Proceedings U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

182, Sadashiv Vs Ward-3(2), Pune. Peth Pune, Pune – 411030. . PAN: AFAPJ 9915 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri S.N.Puranik – AR Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – DR Date of hearing 12/08/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is directed against the Commissioner of Income

MRS. PUSHPA D. PATIL,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1587 To 1592/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

182/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,65,015/-. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty of Rs.1,35,586/-. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent

MRS. PUSHPA D. PATIL,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1587 To 1592/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

182/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,65,015/-. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty of Rs.1,35,586/-. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent

MRS. PUSHPA D. PATIL,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1587 To 1592/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

182/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,65,015/-. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty of Rs.1,35,586/-. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent

MRS. PUSHPA D. PATIL,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1587 To 1592/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

182/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,65,015/-. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty of Rs.1,35,586/-. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent

MRS. PUSHPA D. PATIL,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1587 To 1592/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

182/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,65,015/-. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty of Rs.1,35,586/-. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent

MRS. PUSHPA D. PATIL,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1587 To 1592/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

182/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,65,015/-. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty of Rs.1,35,586/-. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

68,500/-, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for want of evidence. We also find that there was requirement of legal assistance as well as requirement of legal consultancy and other title search activities before 7 Shri Rajendra L. Agarwal investment is made in a bungalow. In our opinion, furnishing

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

section 153A of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the additional income was to the extent of ₹ 1,02,68,417/- 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

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

section 153A of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the additional income was to the extent of ₹ 1,02,68,417/- 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

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

section 153A of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the additional income was to the extent of ₹ 1,02,68,417/- 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

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

section 153A of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the additional income was to the extent of ₹ 1,02,68,417/- 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

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

section 153A of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the additional income was to the extent of ₹ 1,02,68,417/- 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

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

section 153A of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the additional income was to the extent of ₹ 1,02,68,417/- 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

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

section 153A of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the additional income was to the extent of ₹ 1,02,68,417/- 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

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

section 153A of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the additional income was to the extent of ₹ 1,02,68,417/- 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

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

section 153A of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the additional income was to the extent of ₹ 1,02,68,417/- 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

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

section 153A of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the additional income was to the extent of ₹ 1,02,68,417/- 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