9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee 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 assessee was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,46,760/- imposed u/s 270A(8) of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that as soon as the fact of claiming excess refund by the tax consultant came in the knowledge of the assessee he immediately paid the due tax along with interest on 28-05-2019 whereas the notice u/s 148 was issued to him on 25-02-2020, however the revised return could not be filed voluntarily since the date was over. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to delete the penalty of Rs. 1,46,760/- imposed u/s 270(A) of the IT Act. 6. Ld. DR submitted bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kishor Patil. When the fact that this kind of fraud was made in the name of number of persons all of them complaint to the Economic Offence Wing of Police Nashik, against the tax consultant Kishore Patil. The news regarding fraud committed by Kishore Patil also flashed in the daily news paper of Nashik. It is also apparent that there is no mistake of the assessee but it was the hidden interest of the tax consultant who triggered the gun by using shoulders of the assessee & many more for his own benefit. It is also found that as soon as the fact of excess deduction claimed, came to the knowledge of the assessee he immediately paid the due tax with interest, even before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act & contacted another genuine ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
