RAVINDRA PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

ITA 781/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 March 2026AY 2018-195 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's appeal pertains to the assessment year 2018-19, challenging an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) that confirmed a penalty under section 270A. The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer for non-filing of an Income Tax Return (ITR), despite the assessee claiming a bona fide reason and a technical glitch during a video conference hearing.

Held

The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and that the assessee can establish bona fide reasons for non-filing. Since the Revenue accepted the return filed in response to a notice under section 148 and there was no unearthing of unexplained income, the Tribunal found a bona fide reason for the non-filing of the ITR by the assessee.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Gupta, CA

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 17.09.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case , the impugned Ex- parte Order u/s 250 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) NF AC is without affording proper opportunity to the appellant, which is against the principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is void ab- initio and bad in law.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC failed to appreciate that the appellant duly appeared on the date of video conferencing however due to a technical glitch the screen remained blank, which fact was duly substantiated by the appellant by way of a screenshot of the screen.

Page 2 of 5 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NF AC failed to appreciate the material available on record and the statement of facts filed by the appellant and has passed the order ex-parte.

4. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NF AC has erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of Rs 288731/- made by the Ld Assessing Officer on account of underreporting of income.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NF AC erred in confirming the penalty u/s 270A even though NO addition, adjustment, or variation was made in the assessment and the assessed income is EXACTLY the same as the returned income. Therefore, there is no “under-reported income” as required under section 270A(2).

6. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NF AC failed to appreciate that penalty u/s 270A can be levied only where assessed income is greater than returned income; since no such difference exists, the penalty is illegal, without jurisdiction, and liable to be deleted.

That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NF AC erred in law by upholding the penalty even though the assessment order itself does -: : contain any finding or computation of under-reported income, which is a mandatory precondition for levy of penalty under section 270A.

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC failed to appreciate that in absence of any variation to returned income, the penalty is arbitrary, mechanical, contrary to the statute, and unsustainable on facts and in law.

That without prejudice, the penalty imposed is excessive, unjustified, and bad in law. 10. that the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is against merits, circumstances and legal aspects of the case.

11.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) on the ground of non-filing of Income Tax Return (ITR). The explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he imposed the impugned penalty. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalty. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Page 3 of 5 3. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Saurav Gupta, C.A. contended that the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact in their right perspective. He further contended that there was bona fide error on the part of the assessee. The assessee was under bona fide impression that the return income has been filed by his Chartered Accountant who was handling the tax matter, the taxes were duly deducted by the employer of the assessee and the assessee has been holding a position involving significant mental engagement and responsibilities, thus, he remained preoccupied, hence, it was slipped from his mind to verify whether the return of income had been duly filed or not. It is further contended that the income has been accepted by the Department and there is neither any “under-reporting” nor any undisclosed income. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned penalty deserves to be deleted.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”) supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties. It is not in dispute that the Revenue has accepted the return filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is well settled law that the imposition of penalty is not automatic. If the assessee is able to make out a case that the non-filing of return during the prescribed time was due to bona fide reasons. In the present case, the Income Tax Return (“ITR”, for short) filed by the assesse has been duly accepted by the Revenue. It is not the case where the Assessing Officer has unearthed any unexplained income. Further, the assessee is an employee of a private bank and earned salary therefrom. His employer bank has duly deducted tax on the payments. Thus, in our considered view, Page 4 of 5 there existed bona fide reason for non-filing of ITR by the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below ought to have taken a liberal approach. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. The grounds raised in the present appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/03/2026.