2025 (2) TMI 1553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the ground that the assessee had under-reported as a consequence of misreporting 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 under-reported as a consequence of misreporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assessee and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1,15,938/- u/s 270A for misreporting amounts of Rs.3,83,860/-. 4. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty of Rs.1,15,938/- imposed u/s 270A of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. When the present appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record & after hearing Ld. DR. 6. Ld. DR submitted before us that the appellant has not filed correct return of income voluntarily & therefore the appellant is liable for penalty. It wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 gun by using shoulders of the assessee & many more for his own benefit. It is also found that as soon as the fact of excess deduction claimed, came to the knowledge of the assessee he immediately contacted another genuine tax consultant who prepared and furnished correct return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act & paid the due tax with interest, even before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. We find that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 27....