9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(c) of the Act). 2. The appellant-assessee was employed with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL). For assessment year 2016-17, the assessee had filed her Return of Income (RoI) declaring total income of Rs. 7,73,500/- while for assessment year 2017-18 the assessee had declared total income of Rs. 7,53,000/-. 3. It appears that a survey was conducted under Section 133A on 30/09/2018 at two premises of Shri Vijay Sawant who was working as a Tax Return Preparer (TRP) in which certain computers and other incriminating material was impounded and statement of Shri Vijay Sawant and two of his clients Shri Tanaji M Mohite and Shri Awadhnarayan R Yadav were recorded. Incidentally, Shri Vijay Sawant was filing the income tax returns of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. 7. The Assessing Officer initiated separate proceedings for imposition of penalty. After the compliance with the statutory formalities, the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29/02/2024 imposed a penalty of Rs. 34,688/- for assessment year 2016-17 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for 'concealment of particulars of income'. 8. For assessment year 2017-18, a penalty of Rs. 1,27,116/- has been imposed under Section 270A of the Act on the ground that there was 'under reporting of income, in consequence of misreporting'. 9. Both these orders were challenged by the assessee in appeal. The ld. CIT(A) vide separate orders both dated 12/08/2024 has confirmed the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imb under which the appellant had allegedly misreported the income. 14. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : i) DCIT vs Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers (P.) Ltd. [2025] 171 taxmann.com 133 (Pune-Trib.) ii) Manish Manohardas Asrani vs Int. Tax Ward-1(1)(1) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 792 (Mumbai - Trib.) iii) Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA No. 1344/Pun/2024 - order dt. 05.12.2024) iv) Jaipur Telecom (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [2024] 165 taxmann.com 289 (Jaipur - Trib.) v) Sunil Chunilal Kumavat vs ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 287 (Pune - Trib.) 15. We have considered the submissions made. We first take up ITA No. 5278/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2016-17. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Brijendra Gupta (supra) has he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed income. 17. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers (P.) Ltd. (supra) a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Pune has held that where neither in assessment order nor in notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act the Assessing Officer has specified as to under which limb of the provisions of Section 270A(2) or 270A(9) of the Act the assessee had misreported or under-reported his income, no penalty under Section 270A of the Act was leviable. 18. We find that the appeal has to succeed on the ground that the phraseology as used in Section 270 of the Act makes it discretionary/directory for the Assessing Officer to impose the penalty. In CIT vs Dodsal Ltd., 312 ITR 112 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
