DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7.1.1, MUMBAI vs. NSE CLEARING LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3165/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 August 2026AY 2020-215 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. It found that the assessee's explanation was bonafide, all material facts were disclosed, and the withdrawal was voluntary after the amendment. The Tribunal agreed that the penalty provisions were not met.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 270A on the disallowance of health and education cess, which the assessee had withdrawn during assessment proceedings. The assessee claimed the deduction based on prevailing law and High Court decisions, but withdrew it due to a retrospective amendment.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 270A is leviable when an assessee voluntarily withdraws a deduction based on a retrospective amendment after initially claiming it based on prevailing law and judicial pronouncements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

Pronounced: 12/08/2026

PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, dated 19.01.2022, for the assessment year 2020-21 in deleting the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act.

2.

Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the penalty order, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer levied penalty on the disallowance made on account of health and education cess, which was withdrawn by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that health and education cess was claimed as a deduction based on the prevailing law and CBDT Circular No. 91/58/66-ITJ(19) dated 18.05.1967 as well as the decisions of the High Courts in favour of the assessee. Further, it was contended before the Assessing Officer that the claim was withdrawn during the assessment proceedings due to the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, and therefore, the same cannot be treated as under-reporting or misreporting of income, especially when full disclosure was made in the return of income. However, the Assessing Officer not being convinced with the submissions of the assessee, levied penalty under section 270A of the Act.

3.

On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty, observing as under:

“6.7 I have carefully considered the factual matrix and the legal position. The SC judgment was delivered in the scheme of old 271 (1) (c) whereas the present appeal is against penalty u/s 270A. In this regard, judgment of ITAT, Bengaluru is marshalled in the case of IIFL Samastha Finance Ltd in ITA NO 1054 of 2024 in which an identical issue for the same assessment year was discussed and decided. 6.8 The relevant extract is as below: In the present case, the assessee company well before the completion of the assessment proceedings i.e. on 16.9.2022 filed a letter to AO for voluntary 2 declaration of health and education cess by enclosing the revised computation. Considering the totality of the case, we are of the opinion that provisions of section 270A(6)(a) of the Act is squarely applicable in case of assessee company. Here, the assessee offered an explanation before the AO and we are of the opinion that the explanation is also bonafide. Since the assessee company claimed the deduction based on decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional & Non Jurisdictional High Court as well as Tribunals, and the assessee had disclosed all the material facts to substantiate the explanation. Further, the authorities below have also not controverted the decision relied on by the assessee to be incorrect. After the amendment in the Finance Act, assessee had also voluntarily disclosed the health and education cess before the AO well before the completion of assessment proceedings. We are of the opinion that the penalty by hereditary nature is always discretionary. The legislature has used the word "may" in section 270A(1) of the Act which clearly says that it is discretionary on the part of the AO to levy penalty or not. We are also of the opinion that penalty is not at par with the tax and interest and therefore, penalty should not be levied in a light hearted manner or in routine manner and not every additions/disallowances are liable for penalty. The primary onus is on the revenue to prove that assessee falls under particular limb of default. The AO have to bring the case in the four corners of the sections in order to levy penalty which in our opinion, the authorities below failed to do so. The authority below misdirected themself by citing various irrelevant decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court without understanding the real issues involved in the case of assessee company. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the explanation offered by the assessee is bonafide and the assessee has disclosed all material facts to substantiate the explanation. With the above observations, we delete the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee. 6.9 the present case is similar to the above. The assessee had suo moto withdrawn the claim of education and health cess in view of the amendment to the Act. In view of the above, penalty of Rs. 1,60,27,280/- u/s 270A is hereby deleted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed.” 4. On careful perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A), we do not see any valid reason to interfere with the findings of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act. Thus, we sustained the order of the learned CIT(A) and rejected the grounds raised by the Revenue.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/08/2026

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 12/08/2026 Prabhat Copy to: DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 7.1.1, R NO 126, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. 1 ROAD,, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA NSE CLEARING LIMITED, C-1, BLOCK G EXCHANGE PLAZA, 2 BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →