SWARN LATA JALAN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 46(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8316/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 July 2026AY 2022-235 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for imposing penalty under Section 270A, there must be a clear case of misreporting or underreporting of income detected by the revenue. Since the assessee suo motu revised the capital gains loss based on a valuer's report and the revenue did not detect any misrepresentation, the penalty was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty imposed under Section 270A. The penalty was levied on differences in estimated income declared by the assessee, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 270A can be imposed on differences in estimated income when the assessee suo motu revises the income and the revenue does not detect any misreporting or underreporting.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 14/07/2026Pronounced: 14/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.8316/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Swarn Lata Jalan, ITO W-B/7, Lane No. W-8, Ward- 46 (1) Vs Western Avenue, Near Delhi Country Club Sainik Farm, Air Force Station Tughlakabad, Delhi -110062 PAN No.ABIPJ9969Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. K. Sampath Advocate (virtual) Respondent by Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR

Date of hearing: 14/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 14/07/2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2022-23. Ground of appeal is as under :-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessment Unit of the National Faceless Assessment Centre u/s 270A of the Act.” 2. During proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced as under :-

3.

He also argued on the line of the arguments filed in the brief synopsis. 4. Per contra the ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the findings given in the penalty order by the AO as well as in the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that in this case penalty u/s.270A has been imposed by the AO on the differences of estimated income suo-moto declared / brought on record by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. 6. During proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that the income declared by the assessee has been accepted by the revenue and there is no enhancement / reduction by the revenue in the income of the assessee during assessment proceedings. It is the assessee who has changed the capital gain loss on the basis of a report of the registered valuer, therefore, the assessee cannot be charged to under reporting or misreporting of income. The revenue could not rebut this argument of the asessee’s counsel. In our considered view for imposing penalty u/s.270A there should be a clear case of misreporting or under reporting of income by the assessee which is detected by the revenue. Here in this case the revenue has not detected any misrepresenting or under reporting of any income declared by the assessee. It is the assessee itself who suo moto on the basis of report by registered valuer has changed the amount of loss of capital gains. In our considered view since the revenue has not brought on record anything to prove the

misrepresentation or under reporting of the income declared by the assessee, therefore, on differences in estimation cannot be levied as per the decision in the case of Reliance Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, assessee’s appeal on this ground is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:18.09.2026 Neha, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →