VAISHALI ARVIND TAYADE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, AMRAVATI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
[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.
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.
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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.02.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 29th February, 2024 VBP/-
3 ITA.No.373/NAG./2022
Copy to
The appellant. 2. The respondent 3. The NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT, Nagpur concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy //
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
