MAHESH TUKARAM MATKAR,NASHIK V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

ITA 2350/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mahesh Tukaram Matkar, an employee of Bosch Company Limited, who appealed against the penalties imposed for misreporting his income in the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Initially, Matkar filed his income tax returns with understated income, which was later corrected only after the Income Tax Department's intervention. The Assessing Officer, upon reopening the case and after receiving the revised returns, imposed penalties under section 270A of the Income Tax Act for the deliberate misreporting of income. The CIT(A) upheld these penalties, which were subsequently challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee's actions constituted intentional concealment of income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785958 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK KUMAR KEDIA
• Keywords: Revised return; Wrong claim
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2342 & 2350/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mahesh Tukaram Matkar N-9/D-54/Room No.1, CIDCO, New CIDCO, Nashik – 422009 Vs. ITO, Nashik PAN: ABFPM2576B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (through virtual) Date of hearing : 14-10-2025 Date of pronouncement : 27-10-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: ITA No.2342/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2017-18. ITA No.2350/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In both the appeals the assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos.2342 & 2350/PUN/2024 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that these cases were first fixed on 12.02.2025 and since no one appearing on behalf of the assessee, these cases were getting adjourned from time to time and finally when the name of the assessee was called today, neither anybody appeared nor there was any application for adjournment. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of these appeals based on the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR. 4. First we take up ITA No.2342/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2017-18. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an employee in Bosch Company Limited and has filed his original return of income for the impugned assessment year 2017-18 on 26.06.2017 admitting gross total income of Rs.6,87,022/-, Chapter VI-A deductions of Rs.2,35,000/- and total income of Rs.4,52,020/-. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the revised return admitting gross total income of Rs.10,07,618/-, Chapter VI-A deductions of Rs.1,60,000/- and total income of Rs.8,47,620/- and paid the relevant tax applicable of Rs.99,262/-. The difference between the original return of income and revised return of income was Rs.3,20,596/-. Statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was sent to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed the relevant details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment accepting the returned income at Rs.8,47,620/-. Since the assessee has mis-reported income to the tune of Rs.3,20,596/- being Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos.2342 & 2350/PUN/2024 excess deduction claimed, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for mis-reporting of income. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act. The assessee was also show caused as to why the order imposing penalty should not be made u/s 270A of the Act. The explanation given by the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has claimed excess deduction and had the department not detected the under-reporting income in this particular case, then the assessee might not have submitted his revised income and enjoyed the benefit of relevant under- reporting income. Therefore, due to under-reporting in consequence of mis- reporting his income within the meaning of section 270A(1) r.w.s. 270A(8) and 270A(10), the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,32,086/- being 200% of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has made wrong claim of deductions under Chapter VI-A which was detected by the department and on being detected only the assessee filed his revised return of income withdrawing the claim of deductions under Chapter VI-A Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos.2342 & 2350/PUN/2024 and paid the correct taxes. It is also an admitted fact that had there been no detection by the department, the assessee would not have filed the revised return of income and paid the due taxes. The assessee was not truthful and it was clear that the act of cover up was illegitimate in nature. The nature of concealment made by the assessee establishes the fact beyond doubt that the assessee had concealed the taxable income intentionally and deliberately. Further the assessee has not come forward on his own to correct the wrong doings and it is only due to the act of the department that the malady was removed. The assessee has not given any reasonable explanation that the previous improper act undertaken in omitting to offer a true and correct income in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act was executed in good faith so as to protect himself against action u/s 270A(9) of the Act. 8. In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while sustaining the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Accordingly the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in ITA No.2350/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2018-19 wherein the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.90,526/- u/s 270A of the Act. We have already decided the issue and upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Following similar Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos.2342 & 2350/PUN/2024 reasonings, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upholding the penalty u/s 270A of the Act is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 10. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 27th October, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos.2342 & 2350/PUN/2024 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 14.10.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 15.10.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "