JYOTSNA RANCHHODBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 02.05.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceeding u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act.

ITA No. 508/Ahd/2026 Jyotsna Ranchhodbhai Patel, AY- 2017-18 2 and there is nobody in the family to help them in the technical matters pertaining to Income-tax proceedings. The assessee is not used to online portal of the department and the order of the CIT(A) received on the e- mail was overlooked by the assessee due to her old-age. Subsequently, when the demand matter was pursued by the Department, the assessee has filed the present appeal and in the process there was delay of 209 days. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

ITA No. 508/Ahd/2026 Jyotsna Ranchhodbhai Patel, AY- 2017-18 3 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Th

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law - 1. The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has erred upholding penalty u/s 270A. 2. The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has erred not appreciating the facts that appellant consultant has made bona fide mistake by not reducing the capital loss amount from Business income as it included in Profit and loss account. 3. The ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has erred in holding it as under reported income resultant to misreporting and charged 200% penalty. Without prejudice it should be held as under reported income and charged 50% penalty. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter amend, very, modify or delete any of the grounds taken above. 6. Shri Dipen Shukhadia, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee’s consultant had made the bona fide mistake while filing her return, in making adjustment for short term capital loss of Rs.9,05,105/-. When the mistake was brought to the knowledge of the assessee in the course of assessment proceeding, she had accepted the mistake and agreed to the proposed addition and no appeal was filed against the assessment order. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO was not correct in imposing penalty u/s. 270A of the Act for misreporting of income as this was only a bona fide mistake made by the consultant of the assessee while filing the return.

ITA No. 508/Ahd/2026 Jyotsna Ranchhodbhai Patel, AY- 2017-18 4

(9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence; (d) recording of any false entry in the books of account; (e) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and (f) failure to report any international transaction or any transaction deemed to be an international transaction or any specified domestic transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter X apply.

9 In view of the above specific provision, the Assessing Officer, while imposing the penalty under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income, was duty bound to specify as to which specific clause of Section 270A(9) of the Act was attracted in the present case. The Assessing

ITA No. 508/Ahd/2026 Jyotsna Ranchhodbhai Patel, AY- 2017-18 5 Officer had not given any finding in this regard either in the assessment order or in the penalty order. From the facts of the case as already discussed earlier, we do not find that any of the above clauses were attracted in the present case. The assessee had neither misrepresented or suppressed any fact nor claimed any expenditure which was not supported by any evidence. There was no record of any false entry in the books of account. The mistake made by the assessee was evident from the ITR itself and the assessee had never tried to misrepresent her case. Rather bona fide mistake committed by the consultant was duly accepted and no appeal was filed against the assessment order. Considering the specific facts of the case as already discussed earlier, none of the clauses of Section 270A(9) of the Act are found attracted in the present case and we do not find it to be a case of misreporting of income. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income, is cancelled.

Order pronounced in the Court on 12/05/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 12th May, 2026 (True Copy) Neelesh, Sr. PS आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT,

ITA No. 508/Ahd/2026 Jyotsna Ranchhodbhai Patel, AY- 2017-18