VAISHALI ARVIND TAYADE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, AMRAVATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 373/NAG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 February 2024AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted all necessary documentary evidence, including interest certificates and Form 16. Since the Revenue failed to rebut this evidence, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges a penalty imposed under Section 270A for alleged misreporting of income. The lower authorities disallowed interest paid on borrowed capital and deductions under Section 80C.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 270A was rightly imposed when the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence for claimed deductions and interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 27.02.2024Pronounced: 29.02.2024

[THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.373/NAG./2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Vaishali Arvind Tayade, The Income Tax Officer, Parasparsha Teachers Ward-5, Aaykar Bhavan, Colony, Ramkrushna Vihar Ambapeth, Amravati – HVPM, Amravati vs. PIN - 444 602 PAN ACLPW8480H Maharashtra. Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) -None- For Assessee : For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 27.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-2019, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1046380850(1), dated 19.10.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly ex-parte.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance herein challenges the correctness of both the learned lower authorities action imposing sec.270A(9) penalty of Rs.25,196/- thereby holding

2 ITA.No.373/NAG./2022 her to have unreported taxable income as a consequence of misreporting, as the case may be.

3.

The learned DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have found the assessee to have wrongly claimed the interest paid on borrowed capital and 80C deductions of Rs.78,540/- and Rs.1.5 lakhs, respectively, in assessment order dated 09.02.2021. He fails to dispute the clinching fact even going by the penalty order herein dated 01.10.2021 that not only the assessee had filed the relevant interest certificate(s) but all the documentary evidences i.e., Form No.16 issued by the employer which was duly certified as per GPF and other Rules. There is no rebuttal to this clinching fact coming from either Assessing Officer in his penalty order or in the NFAC’s lower appellate discussion. Faced with the situation, we reject Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned penalty in very terms. The same is directed to be deleted.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.02.2024.

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →