Penalty u/s 270A for bogus claim of deduction under Chapter VIA upheld by ITAT
In a recent judgment, the ITAT Pune has upheld the Penalty u/s 270A and 271(1)(c) for bogus claim of deduction under Chapter VIA
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4075 (2024) (06) ITAT
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for three consecutive Assessment Years in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The appellant assessee was an individual deriving income under the head Salaries. Subsequently, the appellant filed revised Return of Income after substantially increasing the amount of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act.
The Assessing Officer, on receipt of information that the appellant had 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 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. That was unaware of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. He believed a Tax Consultant who used to file the income-tax returns and 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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for one AY and u/s 270A for two assessment year.
The Tribunal observed that admittedly, the appellant had filed the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148, and the returned income was 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 and/or misreporting of income. It was immaterial whether the appellant repaid the refund to the Department with interest or not.
Accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied by AO and confirmed by CIT(A), NFAC.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
Mere CBDT Instructions cannot absolve individuals of their obligation to explain the source and nature of their gold holdings, even…
Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations December 2026 ICSI has invited interested members to enroll as General Observers for…
ITAT answers some important and inter-related issues relating to deduction u/s 80IA In a recent judgment, ITAT has dealt with…
Carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return, it is only the set off in subsequent year…
Where sales are duly recorded in books and VAT returns, to treat it bogus sales, AO must bringing cogent adverse…
Expenses to celebrate Diwali with staff creates a goodwill and, therefore amounts to expenses incurred for the purpose of business…