SMT SURUCHI SATISH SARMALKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5942/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 December 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 56(2)(x) due to the difference between purchase price and stamp duty value does not constitute underreporting or misreporting of income for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 270A. The penalty was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a property for Rs. 79 lakhs, but the stamp duty value was Rs. 1,07,07,480/-. This difference was added to the income, and a penalty under Section 270A was levied. The assessee argued that information was disclosed and there was no misreporting of income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 270A can be levied on additions made due to the difference between the purchase price and the stamp duty value of a property, when the assessee claims to have disclosed all material facts and there was no misreporting of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 274,Section 250,Section 154,Section 56(2)(x),Section 50C,Section 92D,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271AAB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh A/w
For Respondent: Shri vivek Perampurna, CIT DR
Hearing: 19.11.2025Pronounced: 18.12.2025

Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 29.11.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) / CIT(A).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

I. Penalty u/s 270A of the Act.

1.

The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming Assessing Officer order levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 14,50,038/- in regards to difference between purchase consideration and the stamp duty value of the property purchased without appreciating that there is no misreporting of any income, therefore levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not justified.

2 Smt Suruchi Satish Sa

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →