SAJI KOPA JOHN,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 1938/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Saji Kopa John Vs. Deputy Commissioner Ranga Reddy of Income Tax PAN:ACRPJ6514B Central Circle 3(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate Sashank Dundu & Adv. M. Pruthiviraj राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 03/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Saji Kopa John (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 06.09.2025 for the A.Y. 2021-22.

148 of the Act dated 29.09.2023 was issued to the assessee by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”). In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 09.12.2023 admitting total income of Rs.79,01,830/-. Thereafter, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 147 of the Act on 20.11.2024 accepting the returned income of Rs.79,01,830/-. Since there was a difference of Rs.6,92,935/- between the income declared in the original return of income and the income declared in the return of income filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act separately. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs.2,05,710/- under section 270A of the Act vide order dated 27.05.2025. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld.AR”) submitted that under the Ground Nos.2 and 3, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Inviting our attention to clause (a) of section 270A(6) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that no penalty under section 270A of the Act can be levied where the explanation offered by the assessee is bona fide and all material facts necessary to substantiate such explanation have been disclosed. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. AO has accepted the returned income filed by the assessee in

response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. It was also submitted that the increase in income disclosed in the return filed under section 148 of the Act as compared to the original return was not deliberate on the part of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the original return of income was filed based on the income reflected in Form No.26AS available at the time of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, while filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee noticed that Form No.26AS had been revised by the deductor and, therefore, on the basis of such revised Form No.26AS, the assessee voluntarily disclosed the higher income in the return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the summary of interest income as reflected in Form No.26AS both at the time of filing the original return and at the time of filing the return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. It was submitted that the difference in income was attributable to interest income earned from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. The Ld. AR also invited our attention to the details of interest income received from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited as reflected in the original Form No.26AS and the updated Form No.26AS and submitted that there was difference in the amount of interest in both the Form No. 26AS. Hence, the difference of income shown by the assessee in both the returns are due to difference in both the 26AS. Therefore, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by clause (a) of section 270A(6) of the Act. Accordingly, he prayed that the penalty levied by the Ld. AO be deleted.

the Act. The contention of the assessee is that the case falls within the ambit of clause (a) of section 270A(6) of the Act and, therefore, no penalty under section 270A of the Act is leviable. According to the assessee, the difference in income was on account of revision in Form No.26AS by the deductor and the higher income was voluntarily disclosed while filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. It was further contended that the additional income pertained to interest income received from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, which was not reflected in the original Form No.26AS available at the time of filing of the original return of income. We have carefully considered the submissions of the assessee. However, we find that the assessee has merely made a general submission that there was a difference in the interest income reflected in the original Form No.26AS and the updated Form No.26AS. The assessee has failed to identify the specific item of income which was allegedly missing from the original Form No.26AS and subsequently appeared in the updated Form No.26AS. We have gone through the interest received by the assessee from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd as per the original Form No.26AS placed at page no. 63 of the paper book, which is to the following effect:

Form No.26AS placed at page no. 121 of the paper book, which is to the following effect:

Section 270A (1)……………. 2……………….. 3………………. 4………………… 5………………… (6) The under-reported income, for the purposes of this section, shall not include the following, namely:— (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide and the assessee has disclosed all the material facts to substantiate the explanation offered; (b) the amount of under-reported income determined on the basis of an estimate, if the accounts are correct and complete to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, but the method employed is such that the income cannot properly be deduced therefrom;

(c) the amount of under-reported income determined on the basis of an estimate, if the assessee has, on his own, estimated a lower amount of addition or disallowance on the same issue, has included such amount in the computation of his income and has disclosed all the facts material to the addition or disallowance; (d) the amount of under-reported income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB”.

No.68 be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. AO for consideration of the immunity application on merits. 14. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR further submitted that the time limit prescribed under section 270AA(2) of the Act is a substantive statutory requirement and not a procedural formality. Therefore, once Form No.68 was filed beyond the prescribed period, the immunity application was liable to be rejected. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amar Nath Vs. ITO in ITA No.74/Del/2023 dated 10.07.2023 and Mrs. Jyotsna Suri Vs. DCIT reported in 61 ITD 139. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed that the appeal of the assessee be dismissed. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. The contention of the assessee is that the delay in filing Form No.68 under section 270AA of the Act ought to have been condoned by the Lower Authority. We are unable to accept the said contention of the assessee. As far as the submission of the Ld. AR that there is no specific mention in section 270AA of the Act that if the assessee fails to file Form No.68 within the prescribed time limit, the Lower authority has to reject the immunity petition, the same has no merit. If the argument of the assessee is accepted, then the time limit prescribed under section 270AA(2) of the Act would become redundant. We have gone through the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO under section 270A of the Act and find that the same is dated 27.05.2025. We have also gone through the acknowledgement

of Form No.68 filed by the assessee placed at page no.164 of the paper book and find that the assessee filed Form No.68 on 28.08.2025, i.e., after the passing of the penalty order by the Ld. AO. Thus, the assessee in the present case had not filed Form No.68 either before the passing of the penalty order under section 270A of the Act or even during the pendency of the penalty proceedings. In our considered opinion, Form No.68 filed after the passing of the penalty order under section 270A of the Act cannot survive and is liable to be rejected. We have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. However, the same are distinguishable on facts. In those cases, Form No.68 was not filed after the passing of the penalty order as in the present case. Therefore, the ratio laid down therein does not apply to the peculiar facts of the present case. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the action of the Lower authority in rejecting the immunity application filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos.4 and 5 of the assessee are dismissed. 16. Ground Nos. 1 and 6 of the appeal of the assessee are general in nature, under which no issue has been raised by the assessee before us. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 6 of the assessee are dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 17th June, 2026. Vinodan/sps

Copy to:

S.No Addresses 1 Shri SAJI KOPA JOHN 5-1007 B. R. Nagar Old Alwal, Secunderabad ,Tirumalagiri K.V.RANGAREDDY Bolarum Bazar S.O 500010 ,Telangana 2 Dy. CIT, Central Circle 3(3) Aayakar Bhavan, OPP: LB Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500054 3 Pr. CIT – Central, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Digitally signed VADREVU by VADREVU PRASADA RAO PRASADA Date: RAO 2026.06.17 17:17:54 +05'30'