VASANT FAKIRRAO RAUT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFCIER, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1393/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 October 2026AY 2017-1814 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied u/s 270A for both assessment years. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee had claimed bogus deductions under Section 24 of the Act (Rs. 1,75,400/-) and under Chapter VI-A (Rs. 2,35,000/-) in his original return. The correct income was declared only after the notice u/s 148 was issued. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which had confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal stated that the CIT(A)/NFAC had provided detailed reasoning while confirming the penalty, and in the absence of any contrary material presented by the assessee to take a different view, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)/NFAC's order. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vasant Fakirrao Raut, an individual deriving salary income, filed his original return for AY 2017-18 on 14.07.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,19,240/-. This return included salary income, a loss from house property, and deductions under Chapter VI-A, leading to a refund claim. Subsequently, information obtained during a survey at Shri Kishore Patil's premises indicated that various individuals, including the assessee, had claimed bogus deductions under Chapter VI-A and bogus house property loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case, issued a notice u/s 148, and the assessee filed a revised return on 23.03.2020 declaring a total taxable income of Rs. 8,77,090/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B, accepting the revised income. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A, levying a penalty of Rs. 1,74,344/- for AY 2017-18 and Rs. 1,39,476/- for AY 2018-19, holding that the assessee had under-reported income due to mis-reporting. The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed these penalties. The assessee filed two appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the levy of penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 1,74,344/- for AY 2017-18 is justified, considering the assessee's claim that the under-reporting of income was due to the wrong actions of his tax consultant. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the under-reporting was attributable to the tax consultant's error, and all material facts, including a complaint filed against the consultant with the Economic Wing of the Police Department, were furnished. The assessee, being a salaried employee with a technical background, was dependent on the consultant for filing returns, and no incorrect claims were made in past or subsequent years, establishing the bona fides of his explanation. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the CIT-DR, argued for the confirmation of the penalty. The judgment does not explicitly record separate contentions for the revenue beyond what is implied by the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 270A(1),Section 270A(9),Section 133A,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 24,Section 80D,Section 80DDE,Section 80G,Section 80GG,Section 80E,Section 80EE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

The above 2 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 27.08.2022 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in both the appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing nor any application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that on previous occasions also no one was appearing before the Tribunal when the appeals were fixed for hearing despite service of notice. It was observed that the case has been adjourned for non-attendance since last ten times. Today also when the name of the assessee was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide these appeals on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary. He filed his original return of income on 14.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,19,240/-. The assessee in the said return had admitted income from salary at Rs.8,29,639/-, loss from house property at Rs.1,75,400/- and has claimed total deductions under Chapter VI-A to the tune of Rs.2,35,000/-. Accordingly, he has claimed refund of Rs.83,430/-. Subsequently information was obtained by the Assessing Officer that during the course of Survey u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of one Shri Kishore Patil it was observed that various persons have claimed bogus deductions under Chapter VI-A u/s 80D, 80DDE, 80G, 80GG, 80E, 80EE of the Act and also claimed bogus house property loss. On the basis of the above information, the case of the assessee was reopened after recording reasons and after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee filed his return of income on 23.03.2020 declaring total taxable income of Rs.8,77,090/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act accepting the returned income. Subsequently the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has under-reported his income in consequence to mis-reporting thereof and the addition on account of under-reported income of Rs.4,57,850/- clearly attracts the penalty provision u/s 270A(1) r.w.s. 270A(9) of the Act. He, therefore, levied penalty of Rs.1,74,344/- for assessment year 2017- 18 being the penalty @ 200%. (Similarly for assessment year 2018-19, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,39,476/-).

4.

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:

1.

The learned A.O. is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,74,344/- on the ground that the assesse had underreported his income in consequence to misreporting by Rs.4,57,850/- without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law.

2.

The learned A.O. failed to appreciate that before the A.O., the assesse had duly explained that under reporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assessee and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesse was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act.

3.

The learned A.O. ought to have appreciated that the bona fides of the explanation offered by assessee were established from the fact that the assessee, being salaried employee from technical background, was totally dependent upon the tax consultant for filing income tax return and no such incorrect claim was ever made by the assesse either in past years or in subsequent years and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A was not justified in view of the explanation offered by the assesse.

6.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee in his original return of income had claimed bogus deduction u/s 24 of the Act of Rs.1,75,400/- and bogus claim under Chapter VI-A of Rs.2,35,000/-. Only after the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued that the assessee filed his return of income declaring correct income which was accepted by the Assessing Officer who thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.1,74,344/-. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the Act. He has given detailed reasoning while confirming the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. Since the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is exhaustive and well reasoned, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice to take a different view than the view already taken by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue, we uphold the same. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

7.

After hearing both the sides, we find the grounds raised by the assessee in the instant appeal are identical to the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1393/PUN/2025. We have already decided the issue and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. Following similar reasonings, the grounds raised by the assessee in the instant appeal are dismissed.

8.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th October, 2026. (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 14th October, 2026 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

3.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

4.

DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //// Sunil Kumar More

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →