MRS ROHINI GAURISHANKAR KALYANI,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred on facts and in law in levying penalty of Rs.1,40,460 u/s 270A of the Act on account of alleged under reporting of Income by the assessee without appreciating the facts as well as the law in this regard.

2. The Appellant Craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute all or any of the above grounds of appeal

.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee is an individual & furnished her return of income disclosing total income of Rs.51,43,790/-. The case was selected for scrutiny & assessment order dated 20-09-2021 was passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the IT Act by making disallowance of Rs.1,21,911/- towards foreign travel expenses being personal in nature. Penalty u/s 270A was also initiated on the basis of this disallowance for under reported income in consequence to misreporting. The AO issued show cause notices u/s 270A of the IT Act on various occasions but the assessee remained absent & therefore the AO vide order dated 15-03-2022 imposed penalty u/s 270A(8) of the IT Act of Rs.1,40,460/- which is 200% of Rs.70,230/- (the tax payable in respect of under reported income) for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The assessee furnished appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC who vide order dated 27-11-2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- “4.7 Further, it is noted that it was only through the scrupulous scrutiny assessment proceedings that the latent misreporting and consequential underreporting of the tax liability came to light. It is imperative to underscore that, had the appellant's case evaded the meticulous scrutiny it underwent, it would have paved the way for an unambiguous revenue diminution for the exchequer. The appellant's obligation is unequivocal: they cannot manipulate the circumstances to diminish their tax liability through the concealment of material facts or income. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the intricacies of this case, the grounds of appeal No.1 is dismissed.”

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 27-11-2023 passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5. When the present appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, after hearing LD DR, we proceed to dispose off this appeal.

6. The LD DR supported the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC.

7. We have heard learned DR & perused the material available on record. We find that the quantum appeal against the 143(3) assessment on the basis of which penalty u/s 270A was initiated had been partly allowed by remand to LD CIT(A)/NFAC by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 07-05-2024. In the light of decision dated 07-05-2024 of coordinate bench in the quantum case of assessee herself, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of LD CIT(A)/NFAC to consider the matter of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act afresh. We therefore set-a-side the impugned first appellate order & remand the matter back to the