TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f appeal in ITA No 419/NAG/2026:- 1. Whether the learned CIT (A) is justified in law and fact in affirming an order levying penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) is justified in making an addition of Rs. 1,44,046/-. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order passed by the learned AO in breach of Principle of natural justice. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground during or at the time of appeal proceedings. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No 420/NAG/2026:- 1. Whether the learned CIT (A) is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lenging the validity of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act as the Ld. AO has not mentioned the specific charge/limit under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated u/s 270A for under reporting or mis reporting of income. Paper Book is placed on record in which the copy of notice and decisions relied are enclosed. However on going through the impugned order I find that the same is an ex-parte order and inspite of sufficient opportunity assessee failed to respond to the notice of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the smallness of the penalty amount and facts available on record I notice that similar notice have been issued for A.Y. 2019-20 & 2020-21 and the copy of show cause notice for A.Y. 2019-20 placed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... similar set of facts, where the assessee has deposited back excess refund in the government treasury prior to the detection by the revenue authorities and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, this Tribunal has given relief to such type of assessee in the case of Santosh 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 ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 270A 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 can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by coordinate Pune Benches Pune in the case of Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal vs ITO Nashik in ITA No. 182/P/2024 order dated 21-10-2024 & in the case of Deepak Bhika Vs ITO Nashik in ITA No. 685/PUN/2024 order dated 21-10-2024 wherein similar penalty was directed to be deleted, we direct the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 1,15,938/-imposed u/s 270A(9) of the IT Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal are allowed. 8. We find that the above decision is squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case and there being no binding precedents referred and relied by the ld. DR we apply the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Santosh Ashokrao Bharhanpurkar Vs. ITO (supra) and delete th....