VADLAPATLA VENKATA BALAKRISHNA RAO (HUF),ELURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 631/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 August 2026AY 2020-2114 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since there was no difference between the income returned in response to the Section 153A notice and the assessed income, the concept of under-reporting of income for penalty under Section 270A could not be applied.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, the assessee admitted additional income of Rs. 40,00,000/- to settle the matter. The Assessing Officer (AO) later initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A for under-reporting of income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 270A is leviable when there is no difference between the assessed income and the income returned under Section 153A, despite an initial admission of income during search.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 270A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Pronounced: 13.08.2026

PER SHRI MANJUNATHA G., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-3, Visakhapatnam [“Ld.CIT(A)”],

1 Vadlapatla Venkata Balakrishna Rao (HUF) Visakhapatnam vide DIN: ITBA/APL/S/2

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 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →