SHRI UPKAR SINGH SANDHU,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), AMRITSAR

ITA 242/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 June 2026AY 2017-189 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable as it did not clearly specify the default for which the penalty was levied, and the penalty was imposed on an amount in excess of the disallowance made. The penalty order was found to be vague and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 270A.

What were the facts?

The assessee is engaged in business and filed a return declaring income. During assessment, certain disallowances and additions were made, including disallowance of interest on capital loans and addition on account of unexplained sale bills. A penalty under Section 270A was also imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 270A is valid when the show cause notice and penalty order are vague and do not clearly specify the default. Whether the penalty can be levied on an amount exceeding the disallowance made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- IN THE INCOMI TAX APPELLAT! TRIBUNAI- AMRITSAR BNNCH, AMRNSAR (VIRTUAL HEARII'C) BtrFORE SH. MANOJ XUMAR ACCARWAI. ACCOUI"TANT MtrMBER AND SII. UDAYAN DASCUPIA! JIJ

vs. r.r.o., wr.d 20 ).

Appdlmtby : Sh. Sarish Bmst, c. A. Rcspondsr by t Dab ofHeding : l{n6.2o26

l. nk appeal is nbd hy rhe *6se 3$in$ rhe oij{ orrh. rd. crT (a) r\TAc, Delhi dacd ?7.0t.20:5 pss.d ds 250 ofrhe tncone-fu Ac! t96t lh1eeldh tk ,4.t) \hi.h hs enuried 6om rhe penatqr'ojdd ,rs 2704 passerb! $e Addnk,at / Deput! cahm (uE{c), Dekt dd.d 11.ro.2rJ2r. ?. Bieffacb energiis fion tuods ffe rhar lhe as4s4 is eDgased in buuion aid jenerlq-y businc* and has tiled his mun decl*ing roral ino@ a. nr r

J4 7r Liri, uhi.h ws sleied ror scrurinv .hl fin,llv rhe 6,asoi *a latut itume oI R: 30 1a kkhs @nh an additunal R' 154e .mptekA an ^ totdrs uidswrtrv hea^) (i) proponioab disallo9mc. olinifts paid ro bent tu t36 r'*tr , (it dis.rbwm.. l's 4o(axia) ror .on dedtrdion or rDs nr 61? r'*b (iii) addition on A,/c orunY.nfi.d sale bi115 I -Rr.? 4/ /abr (iv) diorrowme of cr rom inte

2 1 It is ndhd notd rhat no 4p.al hB bc.n pFfened bv dre a*se' asains $. addiiioE / di$llowes nade in the 6.ssnenr od( L h come ol d*sment prce.d

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →