NATAL MARY PEDRU RODRIGUES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1863/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 July 2026AY 2017-1811 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 the assessee had satisfied the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA, despite a delay in filing Form 68. The delay was considered a procedural lapse, and the substantive conditions for immunity were met.

What were the facts?

The assessee inadvertently used a secondary PAN for a property sale, leading to non-disclosure in the original return. Upon receiving a notice under Section 148, the assessee disclosed the income and paid the taxes. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA despite a delay in filing the prescribed form, and whether the lower authorities properly appreciated the conditions for immunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 270AA,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश की प्रतितलतप अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 4. दिभागीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 5.

P a g e | 11 ITA No. 1863/Mum/2026 A.Y. 2017-18 Natal Mary Pedru Rodrigues सत्यादपि प्रदि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अतधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →