TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that both the appeals are barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 269 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that 'reasonable cause' prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 269 days in filing the appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i.e sub clause of section 270A of the Act and also as the AO had accepted income returned in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add alter delete above OR any other ground/s of appeal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned penalty u/s 270A of the Act for A.Y 2017-18 and A.Y 2018-19 deserved to be deleted in light of the various decisions of the Tribunal dealing with the similar set of facts and deleting the penalty on the ground because the assessee has deposited the excess refund received by it from claiming wrong claim of deduction under Chapter-VI and loss from house property, prior to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act reopening the case of the assessee alleging w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Ashokrao Bharhanpurkar (supra) and has deleted penalty u/s 270A of the Act observing as follows: 7. We have heard Ld. DR & perused the material available on record. From the statement of facts, we find that the assessee is a salaried employee of BOSCH Limited & belongs to technical background. The return of most of the employees of Bosch Company, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A of the IT Act of Rs. 1,15,938/- on the basis of the fact that the correct income was not returned voluntarily but only after issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. It is also found that when the notice u/s 148 was issued the appellant has disclosed his correct income & paid the due tax before issue of notice. We also find 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 270A of the Act is inevitable. From the perusal of penalty order, it appears that the penalty u/s 270A was initiated for the assessment year under consideration and sub....