TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act for A.Y. 2017-18 and u/s.270A of the Act for A.Y. 2018-19 respectively. 2. The grievance of the assessee for A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 is against the levy of penalty at Rs. 74,408/- u/s. 271(1)(c) and Rs. 1,51,168/- u/s. 270A of the Act respectively. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee referring to various decisions of this Coordinate Bench including that of Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar vs. ITO in ITA No. 2140/PUN/2024, dated 20.02.2025 submitted that assessee in the instant case, return of income filed by the Tax Consultant, but duly signed by the assessee and inadvertently claimed excess deduction under the head "income from house property" and under Chapter VI-A of the Act for the impugned assessment years, but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee deposited the refund received from the Income Tax Department to the Government Treasury on 06.06.2019 along with interest of Rs. 8,930/- & Rs. 9,070 for A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. Thereafter, notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued on 17.02.2020 for both the impugned assessment years, however, assessee did not furnish any return of income. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, Ld.AO proceeded ex-parte qua assessee passing best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act on the basis of original return filed by the assessee. Ld.AO concluded the proceedings making additions for the wrong /excess deduction claimed and also initiated penalty proceedings. However, assessee did not appeared before the Ld.AO during the penalty proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AT LTD, Bosch Company, HAL & M & M including that of the assessee was filed by a tax consultant namely Kishor Patil. We further find that the assessee came to know from other employees in company that Mr. Kishor Patil with his expertise is able to legally calculate lower tax, resulting in refund of TDS deducted by employer. The assessee was unaware about the contents of the Income Tax Return filed by Kishor Patil & truly believed that the returns are filed legally as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The assessee being from technical background does not understand ABCD of Income Tax & therefore completely relied on the above named tax consultant, who without informing him & others, claimed excess deduction under chapter VI-A of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind that the Assessing Officer has accepted the return as it is which was furnished by the appellant in response to the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. We cannot accept the contention of Ld. DR that the revised return was not voluntary therefore the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is inevitable. In this regard, the contention of Ld. counsel is also important wherein he stated that the due tax along-with interest was already paid before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act & admittedly the return of income could not be filed as the due date was already over. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. counsel of the assessee that the amount of tax & interest was deposited voluntarily much prior to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income Tax Act. The assessee being from technical background does not understand ABCD of Income Tax & therefore completely relied on the above named tax consultant, who without informing him & others, 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 comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eporting of income as a consequence of misreporting. In this regard, we find that prior to imposition of penalty a notice to show-cause - why an order imposing penalty u/s 270A should not be passed, was issued to the assessee but the particular clause ("a" to "f") of sub-section (9) of section 270A of the IT Act was not mentioned. In such kind of situation, we find support from the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar in ITA No.365 & 366/PUN/2023 dated 20-07-2023 wherein under identical facts and similar circumstances the Tribunal has deleted the penalty u/s 270A by observing as under : - "8. In the case under consideration, the AO has failed to identify the specific Clauses from C....