HARISH VITTHALRAO KALE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2810/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 September 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee knowingly claimed bogus deductions despite being aware of their illegality, thus concealing income. The penalty levied by the AO was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a revised return claiming bogus deductions under Chapter VI-A, resulting in a refund. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly levied for claiming bogus deductions and concealing income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Verma, JCIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 on 13.10.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 of the Act, dated 27.08.2021.

2.

Basic Facts :  In this case, hearing was scheduled on 13.01.2026, Mr. Mahesh Pagare requested for adjournment. Accordingly, case was adjourned to 29.01.2026.  On 29.01.2026 again Ld. AR requested for adjournment. Accordingly case was adjourned to 07.04.2026.  On 07.04.2026 no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly was adjourned to 13.05.2026.

ITA No.2810/PUN/2025  On 13.05.2026 Mr. Mahesh Pagare requested for adjournment and the case was adjourned to 18.05.2026.  On 18.05.2026 the Ld. AR requested for adjournment and case was adjourned to 27.07.2026.  On 27.07.2026 none appeared for assessee and the case was adjourned to 01.09.2026.  On 01.09.2026 none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 2.1 In these backgrounds, we heard the case on 01.09.2026 ex-parte qua the assessee. We heard Ld. DR and perused the records.

Findings and Analysis :

3.

In this case, assessee had filed return of income for AY 2016-17 on 03.08.2016 declaring total income at Rs.7,06,040/-. Subsequently, the return was revised on 22.07.2017 declaring total income at Rs.3,82,850/-. Assessee was served notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.02.2020. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income on 23.03.2020 declaring total income at Rs.7,06,750/-.

3.1 In this case, the notice u/s 148 was issued because during the survey conducted on 23.08.2019 at the premises of the Kishore Patil the Tax Consultant, it was observed that Kishor Patil had filed returns claiming bogus deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Act. In this background, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s 148 to the assessee. The assessee filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act showing gross salary of Rs.8,91,746/- and deductions of Rs.1,50,000/-, declaring total income at Rs.7,06,750/-. Thus, return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 and the original return filed on 03.08.2016 was having the same 2

ITA No.2810/PUN/2025

income. However, on 22.07.2017 assessee had filed revised return showing return income of Rs.3,82,850/-. Thus, assessee consciously claimed excess deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Therefore, AO issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty. The relevant paragraph of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order is reproduced here as under : “4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. Assessee is an employee of a Bosch Limited. In the original return of income, he had reported correct income and claimed only those deductions which were legally admissible. However, subsequently, under the influence of Sh Kishore Rajendra Patil his return was revised, bogus deductions were intentionally claimed which resulted in refund to the assessee. This fact is not denied by the assessee. In his notes, assessee admits to the wrong doing. However, he has mentioned that he was unaware about the provisions of the Income Tax Act. This explanation of the assessee does not hold good. Assessee is an employee of a reputed Private sector Company. He is a salaried person. Tax has been deducted at source before making payments. As an employee he must have shared all his details of investment and intimated about the admissible deductions in his case to his accounts department, on the basis of which tax has been deducted at source. Thus, it is apparent that when suggestion for claiming extra deductions was made, he was aware that these are not as per law. Thus knowingly he has claimed bogus deductions, resulting in suppression of income. Under the circumstances, penalty has been rightly levied. Hence penalty of Rs.56,717/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is confirmed.”

3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

The only contention of the assessee was that Mr. Kishor Patil the Tax Consultant misguided assessee. However, the assessee was well aware about the facts that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A, inspite of that assessee claimed it in the revised return dated 22.07.2017 and also claimed refund. Only because of the

ITA No.2810/PUN/2025

survey action this fact was unearthed. Therefore, after the survey, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Only after the notice u/s 148 the assessee filed a correct return. This explains that assessee had conceal the income and AO rightly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

5.

In this context, we find support from the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jyoti Laxman Konkar Vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 163 (Bombay) held as under : Quote, “In our view, the Assessing Officer as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the assessee had filed the initial return dishonestly with a view to conceal the income and the revised return was filed out of compulsion, i.e., after having found that the assessee had concealed the income and filed a false return with a view to avoid tax liability, in our view, no substantial question/s of law arises in this case either in the manner formulated on behalf of the assessee in the memorandum of appeal or otherwise. The Commissioner of Income-tax allowed the appeal of the assessee by misapplying the said decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had no relevance to the fact situation prevailing in the case at hand, Whether there is concealment of income or not has to be decided with reference to the facts of a given case and the lact-finding authorities under the Act having come to the conclusion that in the facts of the case, the assessee had concealed the income initially with a view to avoid the payment of tax, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this case requiring the admission of the appeal. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.”Unquote.

6.

Similarly, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sangmeshwara Associates, (2012) 345 ITR 396 (Kar.) has held as under : Quote, “36. In a situation where the assessee admits that a return which had been filed earlier did not disclose a true or full income, which is the case in the present situation, does not warrant proof or burden on the revenue to prove things, as it is well settled legal principle that any proof and manner of proof are all not required when there is an admission. Proof is required where it becomes a contentions issue and person asserting is required to make good his version. But in a situation where it is not contested, but admitted, production of proof is not necessary nor warranted in law.

ITA No.2810/PUN/2025

37.

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that both the appellate commissioner and the tribunal erred in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty, by adverting to irrelevant grounds and on untenable reasoning.

38.

The decisions relied upon also did not further the case of the assessee and therefore we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal by answering the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

39.

Appeal allowed and the order of the Assessing Officer restored.”Unquote.

7.

Respectfully following the Hon’ble High Court (supra), we hold that AO has rightly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th September, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 10-09-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.09.10 17:56:16 Ravi Kumar +05'30' आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →