TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n order. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2131/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2016-14. ITA No.2131/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2016-17 : 4. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 36,000/- on the ground that the assessee had concealment of income without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee had duly explained that concealment of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnished return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, declaring gross total income of Rs.7,18,181/- and taxable income of Rs.5,63,510/- after claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act on 20.09.2021 by accepting the income returned in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Subsequently, vide order dated 08.01.2022 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.36,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealing the particulars of income of Rs.2,76,660/-. 6. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty of Rs.36,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claimed excess deduction under chapter VI-A of the IT Act & claimed refund. It was Kishor Patil who cheated all the employees & claimed excess deduction in their returns without informing them for his own benefit. The fact of the cheating came in light when a survey u/s 133A was conducted at the premises of Mr. Kishor Patil. When the fact that this kind of fraud was made in the name of number of persons all of them complaint to the Economic Offence Wing of Police Nashik, against the tax consultant Kishore Patil. The news regarding fraud committed by Kishore Patil also flashed in the daily news paper of Nashik. It is also apparent that there is no mistake of the assessee but it was the hidden interest of the tax consultant who triggered the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alment of income the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed. In this kind of situation, we find support from a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal passed in the case of Sunil Chunilal Kumavat vs. ITO in ITA Nos.1447, 1401 & 1402/PUN./2023 for assessment years 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 order dated 22.03.2024, wherein, under identical situation and similar facts, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) & 270A was deleted by observing as under :- "3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee's pleadings and Revenue's foregoing vehement contentions. I find no reason to sustain either one of these three penalties. This is for the precise reason that the Assessing Officer's sec.271(1)(c) order in the first and foremost assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) and conclude that these twin penalties for assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 also deserve to be deleted. Ordered accordingly." 10. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal (supra), wherein under similar/ identical situation the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, we direct the AO to delete the penalty of Rs.36,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.2131/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 is allowed. ITA No.2132/PUN/2024, A.Y. A.Y. 2017-18 : 12. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order pa....