Where the assessee did not understand technical details while filing ITR but paid tax before 148 notice, penalty cannot be levied: ITAT
Sachin Baban Shinde (ITA No.663/ PUN/ 2025)
Facts:
1. The AO initiated proceeding u s 147 of the Income Tax Act after obtaining approval from the authorities & accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 25-02-2020. The assessee furnished return of income on 11-03-2020 in response to notice u/s 148, whereas additional tax was paid as soon as the assessee became aware of the mistake in the return, even before notice U/S 148 was issued.
2. The assessment was completed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act on 02.03.2021 by accepting the income returned in response to notice u/s 148.
3. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.09.2021 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.1,46,760/- u/s 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act for underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting.
4. Ld. AR submitted that as soon as the fact of claiming excess refund by the tax consultant came in the knowledge of the assesse he immediately paid the due tax along with interest, 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.
ITAT Pune held as below:
1. The assessee is a salaried employee & belongs to technical background. He completely relied on a tax consultant, who without informing him & others, claimed excess deduction under chapter VI-A of the IT Act & claimed refund.
2. 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.
3. When the notice u/s 148 was issued the appellant has disclosed his correct income & paid the due tax before issue of notice. W e also find that the Assessing Officer has accepted the return as it is which was furnished by the appellant in response to the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. We cannot accept the contention of Ld. DR that the revised return was not voluntary therefore the penalty u/s 270(A) of the Act is inevitable.
4. In this regard the contention of Ld. counsel is also important wherein he stated that the due tax along-with interest was already paid before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act & admittedly the return of income could not be filed as the due date was already over.
5. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to impose penalty u/s 270(A)
The copy of the order is as under:
