RAVINDRA PAL SINGH,KHARGHAR vs. WARD 4 , PANVEL

The sole grievance of the assessee revolves around the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act at Rs.44,98,168/-.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual non-resident individual and declared loss of Rs.85,56,378/- in the e-return filed on 24.06.2017 for A.Y.2017-18. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS for the limited purpose of examining Annual Lettable Value of the house property followed by validly serving statutory notices. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed interest u/s.24(b) of the Act at Rs.91,66,315/- resulting into loss declared in the return. Even though during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has stated that there is typographical error in the return and the figure of interest shown in the return at Rs.91,66,315/- is incorrect and the actual amount of interest repaid is Rs.18,35,613/- and assessee being 50% owner, the interest repaid amount comes to Rs.9,17,806/-. In other words, in place of the interest expenditure claimed u/s.24(b) of the Act at Rs.91,66,315/- the actual claim of interest expenditure is only Rs.9,17,806/-. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with these submissions because the assessee has not revised the return and disallowed the alleged loss and assessed income at Rs.2,89,960/-. Assessee did not challenge the disallowance of loss before ld.CIT(A). Ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act and finally concluded the penalty proceedings levying penalty @50% of the tax payable and accordingly levied penalty @50% on the under reported income of Rs.89,96,337/- and calculated the penalty at Rs.44,98,168/- which is an apparent mistake in framing of the penalty order. We further notice that assessee challenged the levy of penalty before ld.CIT(A) but then due to delay of 1399 days

We have gone through the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee before ld.CIT(A) and satisfied that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore in light of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication.

So far as levy of penalty is concerned, we note that ld. Assessing Officer has firstly failed to take note that there was a typographical error in furnishing of income tax return and in place of the interest expenditure of Rs.9,17,806/- wrong figure of interest at Rs.91,66,315/- was mentioned and prima-facie this appears to be a unintentional clerical mistake not attracting any penal provisions. This fact has been brought on record by the assessee on multiple occasions but the same has not been considered. Even the Assessing Officer has wrongly levied the penalty @50% of the under reported income rather than on the tax payable. It is also not a case of evading tax liability. Considering all these facts, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of ld.Juri ictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication of the issue of levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act in light of the observations made hereinabove. Needless to mention that ld. JAO in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is 4 Ravindra Pal Singh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “B” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,