VINAY DATTARAJ KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.563/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vinay Dattaraj Kulkarni, Vs. DCIT, Pune. Flat No.A-803, Golden Trellis, Golden Street, Near Madhuban Society, Balewadi, Pune- 411045. PAN : ACRPK3460F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mikhil Sarawagi Revenue by : Shri Eknath Abhang (Virtual) Date of hearing : 06.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 11.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the

2 ITA No.563/PUN/2026 prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary from Price Waterhouse Coopers Service Delivery Capital Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. and has not furnished his return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act for the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act on the basis of information that the assessee is in receipt of salary of Rs.72,94,116/- and is also in receipt of interest income of Rs.35,769/-, however has not offered above incomes in his return of income for the purposes of taxation. Notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee and return in response to above notice on 14.01.2022 declaring income of Rs.71,61,960/- was furnished. Vide order dated 20.03.2022, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by accepting the income returned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and subsequently vide order dated 29.09.2022 levied penalty of Rs.20,32,796/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.

3 ITA No.563/PUN/2026 4. Being aggrieved with the above penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book as well as copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee did not file his return voluntarily and only after receiving notice u/s 148 of the IT Act the return was filed. We also find that the full amount of tax was also not deposited by the assessee along with the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act. Admittedly, the tax payable on the income returned by the assessee was Rs.20,32,796/- and TDS deducted by the employer was only Rs.18,89,453/- resulting in short payment of Rs.1,43,343/- and consequently a demand of Rs.3,79,358/- along with interest was raised by the Assessing Officer after passing the

4 ITA No.563/PUN/2026 assessment order. This fact clearly demonstrates that if notice u/s 148 would not have been issued, the Revenue would have suffered loss of Rs.1,43,343/-. However, at the same time, we find that the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.20,32,796/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealing the income which is 100% of the tax sought to be evaded which does not appear to be justified. In this regard, we find that the assessee is a salaried employee and tax to the extent of Rs.18,89,453/- was already deducted and appearing in Form 26AS and the credit of the same was allowed to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed the income on which tax of Rs.20,32,796/- is payable, rather it can be said that the assessee has concealed the income on which income tax of Rs.1,43,343/- is payable, since total income tax payable was Rs.20,32,796/- and tax already deposited by the assessee was Rs.18,89,453/- resulting in short payment of income tax of Rs.1,43,343/-. Therefore, income in proportion of balance income tax of Rs.1,43,343/- only, can be considered as concealed income for the purposes of calculation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.

5 ITA No.563/PUN/2026 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of our above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the penalty of Rs.20,32,796/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act to Rs.1,43,343/-. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 11th day of May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 11th May, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.05.12 12:15:01 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.