Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in export of general merchandise, claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 80GGC for a donation to a political party. Subsequent investigation revealed this to be part of a bogus donation racket. The assessee later withdrew the claim and paid the tax and interest.
Held
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction was a misrepresentation of facts and constituted 'misreporting' under Section 270A, even though the claim was withdrawn. The withdrawal after detection through investigation did not negate the initial misrepresentation.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 270A was rightly levied and confirmed for claiming a bogus deduction which was later withdrawn after detection, constituting misreporting.
Sections Cited
270A, 80GGC, 143(1), 148A, 147, 148, 144B, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP KARHAIL
Assessee by : Shri VP Kothari Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 11/03/2026 Date of pronouncement : 27/03/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2019-20 in relation to penalty levied u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The sole ground raised by the assessee is reproduced herein below:
Exim Trac., ITA Nos.
The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in law and facts in The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in law and facts in The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty of 200% being dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty of 200% being dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty of 200% being Rs. 62,400/- u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Briefly stated, the Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in iefly stated, the Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in iefly stated, the Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the export of general merchandise. For the relevant AY 2019 the export of general merchandise. For the relevant AY 2019-20, the the export of general merchandise. For the relevant AY 2019 Assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2019, declaring a total Assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2019, declaring a total Assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2019, declaring a total income of ₹50,05,950/ . In this return, a deduction of ₹1,00,000/- 50,05,950/-. In this return, a deduction of was claimed under Section 80GGC on account of a donation was claimed under Section 80GGC on account of a donation was claimed under Section 80GGC on account of a donation purportedly made to a political party, namely 'Apna Desh Party'. purportedly made to a political party, namely 'Apna Desh Party'. purportedly made to a political party, namely 'Apna Desh Party'.
2.1 The return of income filed by the assessee was The return of income filed by the assessee was The return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequent to the processing to the processing of the return, information was received following a search operation , information was received following a search operation , information was received following a search operation conducted on the said political party. The investigation revealed a conducted on the said political party. The investigation revealed a conducted on the said political party. The investigation revealed a systematic "accommodation entry" racket wherein the party systematic "accommodation entry" racket wherein the party systematic "accommodation entry" racket wherein the party provided bogus donation receipts in exchange for commission provided bogus donation receipts in exchange for commission provided bogus donation receipts in exchange for commission (ranging from 3% to 5%), returning the donation amount to the from 3% to 5%), returning the donation amount to the from 3% to 5%), returning the donation amount to the donors in cash.
2.2 Consequently, proceedings under Section 148A were initiated. Consequently, proceedings under Section 148A were initiated. Consequently, proceedings under Section 148A were initiated. Despite being confronted with specific evidence Despite being confronted with specific evidence—including the including the sworn statement of the President of the Apna Desh Party admitting sworn statement of the President of the Apna Desh Party admitting sworn statement of the President of the Apna Desh Party admitting to providing bogus entries to providing bogus entries—the Assessee initially maintained the the Assessee initially maintained the genuineness of the claim during the Section 148A(b) proceedings. nuineness of the claim during the Section 148A(b) proceedings. nuineness of the claim during the Section 148A(b) proceedings. However, following the issuance of notice under Section 148, the However, following the issuance of notice under Section 148, the However, following the issuance of notice under Section 148, the Assessee filed a return of income withdrawing the said claim and Assessee filed a return of income withdrawing the said claim and Assessee filed a return of income withdrawing the said claim and Exim Trac., the requisite tax and interest. The assessment was paying the requisite tax and interest. The assessment was paying the requisite tax and interest. The assessment was concluded on 06.01.2025 06.01.2025 under Section 144B read with Section under Section 144B read with Section 147, accepting the returned income. 147, accepting the returned income.
2.3 The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A, alleging "under proceedings under Section 270A, alleging "under-reporting of reporting of income in consequence of misreporting." The income in consequence of misreporting." The AO rejected the AO rejected the Assessee's plea of "voluntary disclosure," holding that the Assessee's plea of "voluntary disclosure," holding that the Assessee's plea of "voluntary disclosure," holding that the withdrawal of the claim was a result of inevitable detection rather withdrawal of the claim was a result of inevitable detection rather withdrawal of the claim was a result of inevitable detection rather than bona fide contrition. A penalty of 200% of the tax sought to be than bona fide contrition. A penalty of 200% of the tax sought to be than bona fide contrition. A penalty of 200% of the tax sought to be evaded was imposed, which was subsequently evaded was imposed, which was subsequently upheld by the Ld. upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) observing as under: observing as under:
6.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant reiterated 6.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant reiterated 6.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant reiterated that it is a regularly assessed tax that it is a regularly assessed tax-compliant exporter that filed compliant exporter that filed all returns along with the mandatory tax audit report. In all returns along with the mandatory tax audit report. In all returns along with the mandatory tax audit report. In response to the notice response to the notice under section 148, it revised the return to under section 148, it revised the return to include the political donation of Rs. 1,00,000 as taxable income include the political donation of Rs. 1,00,000 as taxable income include the political donation of Rs. 1,00,000 as taxable income and paid tax and interest thereon before the reassessment was and paid tax and interest thereon before the reassessment was and paid tax and interest thereon before the reassessment was completed. The addition was not disputed to maintain peace with completed. The addition was not disputed to maintain peace with completed. The addition was not disputed to maintain peace with the the department department despit despite e the the donation donation being being genuine. genuine. The The appellant argued that no concealment or misrepresentation appellant argued that no concealment or misrepresentation appellant argued that no concealment or misrepresentation existed because the donation details were already disclosed in existed because the donation details were already disclosed in existed because the donation details were already disclosed in the return, supported by a receipt and bank evidence. The AO, it the return, supported by a receipt and bank evidence. The AO, it the return, supported by a receipt and bank evidence. The AO, it maintained, carried out no independe maintained, carried out no independent verification or provided nt verification or provided evidence that the donation was returned in cash, and instead evidence that the donation was returned in cash, and instead evidence that the donation was returned in cash, and instead merely relied upon information from another search case. It merely relied upon information from another search case. It merely relied upon information from another search case. It claimed that the penalty notice and order were mechanical, claimed that the penalty notice and order were mechanical, claimed that the penalty notice and order were mechanical, vague, and issued without lawful jurisdiction, p vague, and issued without lawful jurisdiction, particularly as the articularly as the AO failed to establish intentional misreporting. Therefore, the AO failed to establish intentional misreporting. Therefore, the AO failed to establish intentional misreporting. Therefore, the levy of penalty was claimed to be unjustified, contrary to law, levy of penalty was claimed to be unjustified, contrary to law, levy of penalty was claimed to be unjustified, contrary to law, and based on presumptions rather than facts. and based on presumptions rather than facts.
Exim Trac., ITA Nos.
6.5 The details submitted are perused. It is observed that the A 6.5 The details submitted are perused. It is observed that the AO 6.5 The details submitted are perused. It is observed that the A based the penalty on findings from a search operation conducted based the penalty on findings from a search operation conducted based the penalty on findings from a search operation conducted on the Apna Desh Party, on the Apna Desh Party, which revealed that the party was which revealed that the party was engaged in providing bogus donation entries. The AO noted that engaged in providing bogus donation entries. The AO noted that engaged in providing bogus donation entries. The AO noted that the appellant had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,00,000 under the appellant had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,00,000 under the appellant had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,00,000 under section 80GGC in its original return and only withdrew it after 0GGC in its original return and only withdrew it after 0GGC in its original return and only withdrew it after the case was reopened due to the search information. It was the case was reopened due to the search information. It was the case was reopened due to the search information. It was observed that the reassessment was completed accepting the observed that the reassessment was completed accepting the observed that the reassessment was completed accepting the revised income only because the appellant withdrew the donation revised income only because the appellant withdrew the donation revised income only because the appellant withdrew the donation claim after being claim after being confronted with evidence. The AO held that, confronted with evidence. The AO held that, had the search action not occurred, the appellant would have had the search action not occurred, the appellant would have had the search action not occurred, the appellant would have continued to enjoy an incorrect deduction, thereby misreporting continued to enjoy an incorrect deduction, thereby misreporting continued to enjoy an incorrect deduction, thereby misreporting income. Consequently, it was concluded that the appellant income. Consequently, it was concluded that the appellant income. Consequently, it was concluded that the appellant underreported income due to m underreported income due to misrepresentation and suppression isrepresentation and suppression of facts within the meaning of section 270A(9)(a), and levied of facts within the meaning of section 270A(9)(a), and levied of facts within the meaning of section 270A(9)(a), and levied penalty at 200 percent of tax on the disallowed amount. The AO penalty at 200 percent of tax on the disallowed amount. The AO penalty at 200 percent of tax on the disallowed amount. The AO rejected the argument of bona fides and voluntary compliance, rejected the argument of bona fides and voluntary compliance, rejected the argument of bona fides and voluntary compliance, considering the donation claim to be considering the donation claim to be part of a bogus donation part of a bogus donation racket that came to light only through investigative action. racket that came to light only through investigative action. racket that came to light only through investigative action. 6.6 Regarding the appellant's argument that there was no 6.6 Regarding the appellant's argument that there was no 6.6 Regarding the appellant's argument that there was no underreporting since the reassessment accepted the returned underreporting since the reassessment accepted the returned underreporting since the reassessment accepted the returned income, the AO's position justifies penalty because income, the AO's position justifies penalty because the revised income, the AO's position justifies penalty because disclosure disclosure disclosure arose arose arose only only only after after after detection detection detection through through through external external external investigation. The voluntary offer was not truly voluntary but a investigation. The voluntary offer was not truly voluntary but a investigation. The voluntary offer was not truly voluntary but a post-detection rectification. Under section 270A(9) (a), this detection rectification. Under section 270A(9) (a), this detection rectification. Under section 270A(9) (a), this qualifies as misreporting due to misrepresentation of facts. T qualifies as misreporting due to misrepresentation of facts. The qualifies as misreporting due to misrepresentation of facts. T claim under section 80GGC in the original return constituted an claim under section 80GGC in the original return constituted an claim under section 80GGC in the original return constituted an inaccurate statement of income, irrespective of later withdrawal. inaccurate statement of income, irrespective of later withdrawal. inaccurate statement of income, irrespective of later withdrawal. 6.6.1 On the contention that the donation was genuine and 6.6.1 On the contention that the donation was genuine and 6.6.1 On the contention that the donation was genuine and disclosed with full particulars, such disclosure cannot exonerate disclosed with full particulars, such disclosure cannot exonerate disclosed with full particulars, such disclosure cannot exonerate penalty if the underlying claim is found non penalty if the underlying claim is found non-genuine based on genuine based on credible evidence from search findings. With respect to the credible evidence from search findings. With respect to the credible evidence from search findings. With respect to the appellant's submission that the notice under section 270A was appellant's submission that the notice under section 270A was appellant's submission that the notice under section 270A was vague and -mechanical, the record shows that the AO clearly mechanical, the record shows that the AO clearly mechanical, the record shows that the AO clearly referred to underreporting in consequence of misreporting, citing underreporting in consequence of misreporting, citing underreporting in consequence of misreporting, citing section section section 270A(9)(a). 270A(9)(a). 270A(9)(a). Thus, Thus, Thus, the the the procedural procedural procedural requirement requirement requirement was was was Exim Trac., ITA Nos. satisfied. satisfied. satisfied. The The The appellant's appellant's appellant's reliance reliance reliance on on on earlier earlier earlier precedents precedents precedents regarding section 271(1)(c) does not directly apply, as the regarding section 271(1)(c) does not directly apply, as the regarding section 271(1)(c) does not directly apply, as the structure and language of structure and language of section 270A differ, defining distinct section 270A differ, defining distinct categories of underreporting and misreporting. categories of underreporting and misreporting. 6.6.2 Finally, the claim of co 6.6.2 Finally, the claim of co-operation and bona fide intent operation and bona fide intent cannot override the statutory presumption where misreporting is cannot override the statutory presumption where misreporting is cannot override the statutory presumption where misreporting is detected through concrete evidence of false detected through concrete evidence of false claim. The AO has claim. The AO has correctly invoked penalty under section 270A at 200 percent, as correctly invoked penalty under section 270A at 200 percent, as correctly invoked penalty under section 270A at 200 percent, as the material facts the material facts-particularly the donation being part of a bogus particularly the donation being part of a bogus entry racket-were were were unearthed unearthed unearthed only only only through through through Departmental Departmental Departmental investigation, and not disclosed by the appellant suo investigation, and not disclosed by the appellant suo motu. 6.6.3 In view of the above facts and discussion the ground of 6.6.3 In view of the above facts and discussion the ground of 6.6.3 In view of the above facts and discussion the ground of appeal is hereby dismissed and penalty levied by the A.O. is appeal is hereby dismissed and penalty levied by the A.O. is appeal is hereby dismissed and penalty levied by the A.O. is hereby confirmed. hereby confirmed.
3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee again Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee again Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee again reiterated the submissions which were made before the Ld. reiterated the submissions which were made before the Ld. reiterated the submissions which were made before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has voluntarily offered CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has voluntarily offered CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has voluntarily offered the said deduction for tax in the return of income filed in the said deduction for tax in the return of income filed in the said deduction for tax in the return of income filed in response to sec 148 of the Ac response to sec 148 of the Act and there is no "variation" there is no "variation" between the returned income and assessed income in the between the returned income and assessed income in the between the returned income and assessed income in the reassessment proceedings; hence, Section 270A is not triggered; reassessment proceedings; hence, Section 270A is not triggered; reassessment proceedings; hence, Section 270A is not triggered; Further the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that Further the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that Further the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the notice issued u/s 270A of the Act is defec the notice issued u/s 270A of the Act is defective tive and vague, failing to specify the exact limb of "misreporting" under Section failing to specify the exact limb of "misreporting" under Section failing to specify the exact limb of "misreporting" under Section 270A(9), thereby violating the principles of natural justice , the 270A(9), thereby violating the principles of natural justice 270A(9), thereby violating the principles of natural justice notice itself is liable to be quashed. In support thereof the notice itself is liable to be quashed. In support thereof the notice itself is liable to be quashed. In support thereof the Ld. Counsel relied in the following judicial Ld. Counsel relied in the following judicial decisions: decisions:
Exim Trac., ITA Nos. i. ACIT Vs Anuj Prakash Gupta dated ACIT Vs Anuj Prakash Gupta dated ACIT Vs Anuj Prakash Gupta dated 05.02.2026. ii. Shri Shri Shri Deepak Deepak Deepak Mittal Mittal Mittal Vs. Vs. Vs. ACIT, ACIT, ACIT, Circle Circle Circle 1(1), 1(1), 1(1), ITA ITA ITA No. No. No. 393/Vizag/2014. 393/Vizag/2014. iii. PCIT Vs. Gragerious Projects Pvt Ltd in (2025) 475 ITR 546 PCIT Vs. Gragerious Projects Pvt Ltd in (2025) 475 ITR 546 PCIT Vs. Gragerious Projects Pvt Ltd in (2025) 475 ITR 546 (Delhi) iv. Kaemaveer Singh Vs. ITO 25(1), Delhi ITA 4673 Kaemaveer Singh Vs. ITO 25(1), Delhi ITA 4673/Del/2024. /Del/2024. 3.1 Per contra the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) he Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), he Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that (i) The "voluntariness" claimed by the Assessee is a submitted that (i) The "voluntariness" claimed by the Assessee is a submitted that (i) The "voluntariness" claimed by the Assessee is a facade. The claim was only withdrawn after the Department facade. The claim was only withdrawn after the Department facade. The claim was only withdrawn after the Department unearthed the fraud via a search operation; (ii) Section unearthed the fraud via a search operation; (ii) Section 270A(9)(a) unearthed the fraud via a search operation; (ii) Section specifically covers "misrepresentation or suppression of facts," specifically covers "misrepresentation or suppression of facts," specifically covers "misrepresentation or suppression of facts," which is squarely applicable here. which is squarely applicable here.
We have heard the rival contentions and scrutinized the We have heard the rival contentions and scrutinized the We have heard the rival contentions and scrutinized the material on record. The primary issue before us is whether the material on record. The primary issue before us is whether the material on record. The primary issue before us is whether the Assessee’s conduct cons Assessee’s conduct constitutes "under-reporting in consequence of reporting in consequence of misreporting" within the meaning of Section 270A. misreporting" within the meaning of Section 270A.
4.1 The Assessee’s reliance on decisions pertaining to Section The Assessee’s reliance on decisions pertaining to Section The Assessee’s reliance on decisions pertaining to Section 271(1)(c) is misplaced. Unlike the erstwhile "concealment" or 271(1)(c) is misplaced. Unlike the erstwhile "concealment" or 271(1)(c) is misplaced. Unlike the erstwhile "concealment" or "inaccurate particulars" regime, Sect "inaccurate particulars" regime, Section 270A creates a distinct ion 270A creates a distinct hierarchy of "under- -reporting" reporting" and and "misreporting." "misreporting." The The AO AO specifically invoked Section 270A(9)(a), which pertains to the specifically invoked Section 270A(9)(a), which pertains to the specifically invoked Section 270A(9)(a), which pertains to the misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The record indicates that misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The record indicates that misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The record indicates that the Assessee was fully aware of the ch the Assessee was fully aware of the charges, having responded to arges, having responded to the specific allegations regarding the bogus donation. Thus, the the specific allegations regarding the bogus donation. Thus, the the specific allegations regarding the bogus donation. Thus, the notice cannot be termed vague or mechanical. notice cannot be termed vague or mechanical.
Exim Trac., ITA Nos.
4.2 The statutory scheme of Section 270A(9) is designed to The statutory scheme of Section 270A(9) is designed to The statutory scheme of Section 270A(9) is designed to penalize dishonest claims. In the present case, the Assesse penalize dishonest claims. In the present case, the Assessee claimed penalize dishonest claims. In the present case, the Assesse a deduction for a donation that investigation proved to be a circular a deduction for a donation that investigation proved to be a circular a deduction for a donation that investigation proved to be a circular movement of cash. Further the contention of the assessee that Further the contention of the assessee that Further the contention of the assessee that he voluntary withdrawn the deduction claimed in regular he voluntary withdrawn the deduction claimed in regular he voluntary withdrawn the deduction claimed in regular return of income is also not justified because even during return of income is also not justified because even during the return of income is also not justified because even during proceedings u/s 148A of the Act, proceedings u/s 148A of the Act, the Assessee initially defended the Assessee initially defended the claim and did not accept for withdrawal of deduction of did not accept for withdrawal of deduction of did not accept for withdrawal of deduction of section 80GGC and submitted the claim to be genuine section 80GGC and submitted the claim to be genuine section 80GGC and submitted the claim to be genuine despite the ld AO brought the facts emerged in the course of despite the ld AO brought the facts emerged in the course of despite the ld AO brought the facts emerged in the course of search in the case of political party. Thus offering the case of political party. Thus offering the case of political party. Thus offering the income in response to return filed u/s 148 of the Act cannot income in response to return filed u/s 148 of the Act cannot income in response to return filed u/s 148 of the Act cannot be treated as voluntarily nature. be treated as voluntarily nature. Further the argument of “ Further the argument of “peace of mind" for offering the income does not negate the fact that the of mind" for offering the income does not negate the fact that the of mind" for offering the income does not negate the fact that the initial claim was based on a non based on a non-existent transaction.
4.3 The act of claiming a deduction for an accommodation entry is The act of claiming a deduction for an accommodation entry is The act of claiming a deduction for an accommodation entry is a classic case of misrepresentation of facts misrepresentation of facts. The subsequent . The subsequent "voluntary" offer in response to a Section 148 notice "voluntary" offer in response to a Section 148 notice— —issued only after the Department had after the Department had obtained incontrovertible evidence from a obtained incontrovertible evidence from a third-party search—is is is merely merely merely an an an attempt attempt attempt to to to mitigate mitigate mitigate the the the consequences of detection. It does not wash away the initial consequences of detection. It does not wash away the initial consequences of detection. It does not wash away the initial misreporting.
Exim Trac., ITA Nos.
4.4 The decisions relied upon by the assessee before us have The decisions relied upon by the assessee before us have The decisions relied upon by the assessee before us have already been dealt by already been dealt by the Ld. CIT(A). The decision in the he decision in the case of Anuj Prakash Gupta (supra) & Shri Deepak Mittal Anuj Prakash Gupta (supra) & Shri Deepak Mittal Anuj Prakash Gupta (supra) & Shri Deepak Mittal (supra) are distinguishable from the facts as both the are distinguishable from the facts as both the are distinguishable from the facts as both the decisions related to decisions related to disputes over the eligibility of deductions disputes over the eligibility of deductions under Section 80GGA, and not on the issue o under Section 80GGA, and not on the issue of penalty. f penalty. Further in the case of Gregerious Pvt Ltd (supra) Gregerious Pvt Ltd (supra), penalty levied by in , penalty levied by in terms of Sec. 270A(1)(c) of the Act. T of Sec. 270A(1)(c) of the Act. The issue in dispute in he issue in dispute in said decision was as under: as under:
Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed 8. Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed 8. Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 23.05.2017, vide on 23.05.2017, vide which, an addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/ which, an addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- was made on account of alleged advance given to M/s. TAIDIA made on account of alleged advance given to M/s. TAIDIA made on account of alleged advance given to M/s. TAIDIA Construction and written off in the year under consideration. The Construction and written off in the year under consideration. The Construction and written off in the year under consideration. The AO while disallowing the alleged business expenditure noted AO while disallowing the alleged business expenditure noted AO while disallowing the alleged business expenditure noted that the assessee company had that the assessee company had failed to file any agreement or failed to file any agreement or supporting evidence in respect of the advance. supporting evidence in respect of the advance.
AO further adjusted the business loss of Rs. 14,046/ 9. AO further adjusted the business loss of Rs. 14,046/- with the 9. AO further adjusted the business loss of Rs. 14,046/ income from short term capital loss and assessed the total income from short term capital loss and assessed the total income from short term capital loss and assessed the total income at Rs. 96,88,900/ income at Rs. 96,88,900/- as against loss of Rs. 5,00,14,046/ 5,00,14,046/-, claimed in the ITR. claimed in the ITR.
Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the AO 10. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the AO 10. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the AO and after recording his satisfaction, notice u/s 274 read with and after recording his satisfaction, notice u/s 274 read with and after recording his satisfaction, notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) was issued, whereby, the assessee was asked to show 271(1)(c) was issued, whereby, the assessee was asked to show 271(1)(c) was issued, whereby, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271 cause as to why penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) may not be imposed upon (1) (c) may not be imposed upon it.”
4.5. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the said case are Thus, the facts and circumstances of the said case are Thus, the facts and circumstances of the said case are different from the case of the assessee. om the case of the assessee.
Exim Trac., ITA Nos.
4.6 Similarly, Similarly, the the facts facts in in Kaeamveer Singh (supra) (supra) are are distinguishable as the notice therein was devoid of any sp distinguishable as the notice therein was devoid of any specific distinguishable as the notice therein was devoid of any sp statutory limb, whereas here, the AO has clearly identified the statutory limb, whereas here, the AO has clearly identified the statutory limb, whereas here, the AO has clearly identified the charge under Section 270A(9)(a). charge under Section 270A(9)(a).
4.7 In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Assessee’s conduct In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Assessee’s conduct In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Assessee’s conduct squarely falls under the ambit of "misreporting" through the squarely falls under the ambit of "misreporting" through the squarely falls under the ambit of "misreporting" through the suppression and misrepresentation of the nature of the transaction. suppression and misrepresentation of the nature of the transaction. suppression and misrepresentation of the nature of the transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty at the rat The Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty at the rate of The Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty at the rat 200%. We find no reason to interfere with the well 200%. We find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of reasoned order of the lower authorities. Accordingly in view of the above Accordingly in view of the above the lower authorities. submission we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the issue in submission we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the issue in submission we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the issue in dispute. The sole ground of the appeal of the assessee he sole ground of the appeal of the assessee he sole ground of the appeal of the assessee accordingly dismissed. y dismissed.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 ounced in the open Court on 27/03/2026. ounced in the open Court on 27