ANIL HIRAMAN DUSANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Briefly the facts of the case as emanating from the record are that the assessee is an individual employed with Bosch Limited at Nashik and deriving income from salary. Income of Rs.6,81,770/- declared in the original return of income e-filed for A.Y. 2017-18 on 15.07.2017. Subsequently, the assessee revised the return and claimed refund of Rs.60,570/- after deductions under Chapter VIA. Post survey u/s.133A of the Act at the premises of Mr. Kishor Patil,Tax Consultant, he stated that he had filed income tax returns of employees working in certain companies claiming bogus deductions. Based on this information, case of the assessee selected for reassessment by way of issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income revising the return claiming refund of Rs.65,260/-. On due consideration of the submissions of assessee, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment disallowing the entire deductions claimed by the assessee. Income assessed at Rs.8,97,388/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) contending that he is a regular tax payer over the years and totally dependent upon Mr. Kishor Patil, Tax Consultant. Assessee contended that Mr. Kishor Patil, Tax Consultant had made wrong claims. On coming to know about the wrong claims made by Mr. Kishor Patil, Tax Consultant, certain employees along with the assessee have lodged a complaint against the Tax Consultant with Economic Wing of Police Department. Assessee revised the returns and paid the due taxes. Before the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee submitted explanation along with requisite evidences of Police Complaint, newspaper cuttings etc. He submitted that he has no malafide intention but he is one of the victim of fraud committed by the Tax Consultant. However, ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that deductions claimed under section 80C of the Act have not been allowed by the Assessing Officer while computing the assessed income which mainly includes Provident Fund, LIC premium deposit and due credit of the taxes paid by the assessee. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The sole issue agitated in this appeal is that deductions claimed under Chapter VIA have not been allowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that assessee has revised the return multiple times claiming wrong deductions which is nothing but misreporting of income. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee’s case along with other employees working in various companies have been reopened due to the fact that Mr. Kishor Patil, Tax Consultant who filed their income tax returns has made wrong claims for getting refund. It is also borne out from the record that the assessees have filed complaints against him. However, ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer holding as under :

On perusal of the above finding of ld.CIT(A), the fact remains that deductions under Chapter VIA being Provident Fund and LIC premium deposits appearing in Form 16 issued by Bosch Ltd.and credit for the taxes deducted at source deserves to be allowed as contended by ld. Counsel for the assessee. We therefore on appraisal of the factual matrix and in the interest of justice deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer for necessary verification and if the claim of the assessee is found to be correct, then the same shall be allowed in accordance with law. Needless to mention that ld. JAO shall allow reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Similar facts and finding of the lower authorities prevail for the A.Y. 2018-19 as well. Therefore, our finding given in A.Y. 2017-18 shall apply mutatis mutandis for the appeal pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 also with similar directions.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,