SURESH TRAMBAK DUSANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Briefly, the facts of the case for the A.Y. 2016-17 are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “Salaries”. The Return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 was filed on 18.07.2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,85,060/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,36,517/-. Subsequently, the appellant filed revised Return of Income disclosing income of Rs.2,84,040/- after claiming deduction of Rs.2,74,000/-. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of information that the appellant made bogus claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, issued notice u/s.148. In response to the notice u/s.148, the appellant filed the return of income declaring income of Rs.6,90,040/- withdrawing part of the claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO accepting the returned income filed in pursuance to notice u/s.148. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed explanation stating that misreporting of income was not intentional. He was unaware of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. He believed one Mr. Kishor Patil, Tax Consultant who used to file the income-tax returns. Mr. Kishor Patil manipulated the information and filed the revised return without taking his consent. However, the rejecting the above contentions of the appellant the AO levied penalty of Rs.63,452/-.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order had confirmed the penalty levied by the AO.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.

On the other hand, the ld. DR placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities prayed for confirming the levy of penalty.

We heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. The issue in the present appeal is whether the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income as envisaged u/s.271(1)(c) or not? Admittedly, the appellant filed the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.148, and the returned income is more than the income shown in the original return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. This constitutes filing of inaccurate particulars. It is immaterial whether the appellant repaid the refund to the Department with interest or not. Thus, we concur with the findings drawn by the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty. A.Yrs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 :

The facts stated in are identical even in appeal bearing ITA Nos. 1430/PUN/2023 & 1431/PUN/2023. The AO levied penalty of Rs.1,39,492/- for misreporting of income u/s.270A for the A.Y. 2017-18 and Rs.1,13,422/- for the A.Y. 2018-19. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act for both the assessment years. Admittedly, the appellant filed the return(s) of income filed in response to notice u/s.148, and the returned income is more than the income shown in the original return(s) of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. This is considered to be under-reporting of income under clause (b) sub-section (3) of Section 270A. Therefore, it is a clear case of misreporting of income and the authorities are justified in levying penalty u/s.270A of the Act. The finding given in ITA No. 1429/PUN/2023 equally holds good for the appeal ITA No. 1430/PUN/2023 & 1431/PUN/2023 in view of similarity in facts. Thus, we affirm the orders passed by the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s.270A on account of misreporting of income for both the assessment years.

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 29th day of May, 2024.