SHREE BALAJI CHAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 26(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3341/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 June 2026AY 2019-204 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 penalty was unsustainable because the quantum addition was based on mere estimation and the show-cause notice and penalty order lacked specific charges for under-reporting or misreporting of income as required by Section 270A.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was estimated after rejecting books of accounts due to alleged out-of-books transactions. A penalty was levied under Section 270A for under-reporting and misreporting of income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 270A can be levied without a specific charge of under-reporting or misreporting, and whether estimation-based additions justify such a penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.3341/MUM/2026 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shree Balaji Chain ITO – Ward 26(2)(1) 304, Bldg. No. 6, Veena Saaz Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, बिधम/ Near Videocon Tower, Thakur Complex Maharashtra, 400051 Vs. Kandivali, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400101 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ACKFS-2339-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Dharan V Gandhi (Adv.) – Ld. AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Sajit V Nair (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 16-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 18-06-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 20.01.2026confirming penalty u/s 270A for Rs.32.89 Lacs as levied by Ld. AO vide penalty order dated 15.08.2025.

2.

The Ld. AR advanced legal arguments as well as arguments on merits and referred to various case laws. The copies of show-cause notices issued during penalty proceedings have been placed on record. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, pleaded for confirmation of impugned penalty. 3. From case records, it emerges that an assessment was framed against the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B on 24.02.2025 wherein Ld. AO alleged that the assessee carried out out-of-books transactionsfor Rs.13.44 Crores. Accordingly, the books were rejected and assessee’s income was estimated @3.5% to make addition of Rs.47.06 Lacs. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated in the assessment order for under-reporting of income inconsequence of misreporting of income u/s 270A of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, show-cause notice was issued to the assessee on 24.02.2025. The assessee opposed levy of penalty, however, Ld. AO rejected the submissions of the assessee and levied impugned penalty of Rs.32.89 Lacs for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. The Ld. CIT(A) held the appeal to be non-maintainable for want of condonation of delay of 104 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. It clearly emerges that the quantum addition has been made on mere estimation only. The Ld. AO has rejected the assessee’s books of accounts and made allegations of out-of-book transactions. However, the income has finally been determined on mere estimation only which do not justify imposition of impugned penalty on the

assessee. Another reason is that a specific charge has not been framed in the show-cause notice as well as in the penalty order.The penalty has been levied merely on the allegation of under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income.These two terms carry different connotations. The instances of mis-reporting of income have been specified in sub-section (9) of Sec.270Awhich deal with unique situations as classified as clause (a) to (f). In our considered opinion, Ld. AO is bound to frame a specific charge against the assessee otherwise the penalty proceedings would be bad-in-law. This proposition finds support from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. (145 Taxmann.com 665) holding that wherein Ld. AO failed to specify limb of 'underreporting' or 'misreporting' of income, under which penalty proceedings had been initiated then in such a case the penalty notice would be erroneous and arbitrary and, thus, petitioner was to be granted immunity u/s 270A. The court, in para-7, also observed that there was not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act was attracted and how the ingredients of sub- section (9) of Section 270A were satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word "misreporting"in the assessment order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary. This decision has subsequently been followed by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of G.R. Infraprojects Ltd. (158 Taxmann.com 80). The Hon’ble Court, in para-28, observed that while initiating the

penalty proceedings, AO failed to specify that which part of sub- Section (9) of Section 270A was attracted and therefore, the initiation of penalty was non-est.Similar is the decision of Pune Tribunal in Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers (P) Ltd. (171 Taxmann.com 133) as well as the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Hi- Tech Engineers(182 Taxmann.com 385) as cited by Ld. AR. The ratio of all these decisions squarely applies to the facts of present case before us. Therefore, we find substantial force in the argument of Ld. AR and delete the impugned penalty on legal grounds as well as on merits. 5. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 18th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANKIT, PS Dated: 18.06.2026 आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT 4. ववभागीयप्रवतवनवि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT 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 →