APEX DETONATORS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 165/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 September 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before lower authorities and an apparent mistake in penalty calculation. It restored the penalty issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Apex Detonators Pvt. Ltd., failed to file its income tax return. Based on Form 26AS, the AO initiated reassessment and levied penalty under Section 270A for under-reported interest income, which the CIT(A) confirmed. The assessee did not participate in the lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 270A was correctly levied and calculated, and whether the assessee was granted a proper opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR SMC BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Loya, CA
For Respondent: Shri Shiv Shankar Yadav, Sr.DR
Hearing: 30/07/2026Pronounced: 02/09/2026

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 26.12.2025 passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of penalty order dated 30.05.2024 passed u/sec. 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20.

2.

Sole grievance of the assessee is that Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty at Rs. 1,34,568/- levied by the Ld. AO u/sec. 270A of the Act.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before me. The assessee is a private limited company and did not furnish its regular return of income. Based on the information appearing in Form No.26AS,

2 ITA No.165/PUN/2026 (Apex Detonators Pvt. Ltd.)

Ld.Assessing Officer (AO) issued valid notice u/sec. 148 of the Act for carrying out re-assessment proceedings. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee did not make proper compliance. Ld.AO noticed from Form No.26AS that assessee has received interest from The Sarswat Co-op. Bank Ltd. at Rs.8,62,624/- and deducted tax at source of Rs.86,263/-. In absence of reply from assessee, Ld.AO calculated the total income at Rs. 8,62,624/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/sec. 270A of the Act on the under reporting income. Subsequently, notice issued for carrying out penalty proceedings, but assessee again did not respond and the Ld. AO levied penalty u/sec. 270A of the Act @50% of the tax payable at Rs. 2,69,137/- on the under-reported income at Rs. 8,62,624/-. Against the said penalty levied u/sec. 270A, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but again did not made any submissions, resulting into dismissal of appeal. Now assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

In the course of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee should not have been visited by the alleged penalty because the interest income is the only income of the assessee-company, which has already been reflected in Form No.26AS and the tax at source has also been deducted. He also referred to calculation of penalty stating that Ld. AO has adopted the wrong figure of tax payable because TDS has not been deducted from the tax payable.

5.

On the other hand, Ld.DR supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).

6.

I note that assessee has not made compliance before the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings as well as first appellate proceedings. The present appeal is against the

3 ITA No.165/PUN/2026 (Apex Detonators Pvt. Ltd.)

levy of penalty u/sec. 270A of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee is claiming that assessee’s only source of income is interest from FDR and that the assessee is not carrying out regular business activity. I note that with introduction of Form No.26AS and widening of the scope of TDS provisions, various financial transactions are now captured and reflected on the Income Tax Portal and it is easy to take note of such transactions and in case return of income is not filed or such reported transactions are not appearing in the returns, it becomes easy for the Revenue authorities to take action against the concerned assessee. Though, the assessee is claiming that the information contained in Form No.26AS should be treated sufficient for reporting of income. I do not find any merit in such contention because assessee is a private limited company and is required to file the income tax return on year to year basis and that the income is chargeable to higher rate of tax as compared to the rate of TDS.

7.

However, considering the fact that assessee has not participated in the proceedings before the lower authorities and also has raised a specific ground No.4 that assessee has not been granted opportunity for filing written submissions and also taking into consideration the apparent mistake in calculation of penalty shown by the learned counsel for the assessee, I deem it appropriate to restore the alleged issue of penalty u/sec. 270A of the Act to the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for denovo adjudication and decide it afresh in accordance with law. Needless to mention that Ld.JAO shall grant fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee assessment and the assessee shall not take unnecessary adjournments unless other required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4 ITA No.165/PUN/2026 (Apex Detonators Pvt. Ltd.)

8.

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

Order pronounced on 02nd September, 2026 under Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune & Dated : 02nd Sept., 2026 vr/- Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. PCIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Nagpur. 5. Guard File

BY ORDER //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →