RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED,OLD WORKING WOMEN HOSTEL, BEHIND NEHRU PALACE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JPR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 270A cannot be imposed mechanically. The assessee's explanation for the delay was bona fide, and the income declared was accepted by the AO without variation, thus excluding it from 'under-reported income'.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a government company, did not file its return under section 139(1) due to delays in statutory audit. It later filed a return under section 148, which was accepted by the AO without additions. A penalty was levied under section 270A for under-reported income.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under section 270A is leviable when a belated return filed under section 148 is accepted without any additions, and if the assessee's explanation for delay is considered bona fide.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, JAIPUR
Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Prakash
PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(A)”] dated 05.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), arising out of the penalty order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) under section 270A of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20. I.T.A No. 654/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water S
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.
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
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026