WADHWAGROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the double deduction was a bona fide computational mistake and not an intentional under-reporting of income. Since the assessee voluntarily disclosed the error and offered it for taxation, the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a double deduction of ₹58,69,608/- due to an inadvertent computational error. The assessee itself discovered this mistake during assessment proceedings and voluntarily offered the amount for taxation before the Assessing Officer issued a notice.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 270A is leviable when an under-reporting of income arises from a bona fide computational error that the assessee voluntarily discloses and offers for taxation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI JAGADISH
Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai for the assessment year 2017-18, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee filed its return of income declaring NIL income and loss of ₹174.41 crores. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on
ITA No.288/M/2026 Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited 29.12.2019 determining the loss at ₹164.74 crores after making, inter alia, an addition of ₹58,69,608/- on account of double deduction claimed in the computation of income. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had reduced an amount of ₹58,69,608/- twice, once while computing the profits and gains of business and again under the head “any other amount allowable as deduction”, thereby resulting in double deduction. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 23.12.2019 calling upon the assessee to explain as to why the said amount should not be added back to the total income. The facts on record, however, reveal that prior to issuance of the said notice, the assessee during the course of furnishing details had itself realised the mistake and vide letter dated 18.12.2019 submitted before the Assessing Officer that the amount of ₹58,69,608/- was inadvertently claimed twice and requested that the same may be added back to the income. The assessee reiterated the said position in subsequent submissions also. 4. The Assessing Officer, however, proceeded to make the addition and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act on the ground that the assessee had under-reported its income. The penalty was ultimately levied at ₹9,06,860/- being 50% of the tax on the alleged under-reported income. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the double deduction was purely on account of inadvertent computational error and there was no intention to under-report income. It was further submitted that the assessee itself detected the mistake during the course of assessment proceedings and suo motu offered the amount for taxation vide letter dated 18.12.2019, much prior to the issue of show cause 2
ITA No.288/M/2026 Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited notice by the Assessing Officer on 23.12.2019. It was thus contended that the explanation offered by the assessee was bona fide and all material facts were duly disclosed. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the amount of ₹58,69,608/- was duly reflected in the books of account and financial statements of the assessee. The addition arose only on account of double deduction claimed in the computation of income. It is also an admitted position that the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, had itself brought this mistake to the notice of the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 18.12.2019 and offered the same for taxation. The show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer pointing out the said discrepancy is dated 23.12.2019. Thus, the sequence of events clearly demonstrates that the disclosure was voluntary and prior to detection by the Assessing Officer. 8. In our considered view, this is not a case where the Assessing Officer has detected any undisclosed income or brought on record any material to show that the assessee had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The addition has arisen purely on account of a computational mistake, which was duly explained by the assessee and accepted during the course of assessment. 9. Section 270A(6)(a) provides that where the assessee offers an explanation in respect of any addition and the same is found to be bona fide and all material facts necessary for computation of income have been disclosed, such amount shall not be considered as under-reported income. In the present case, the explanation offered by the assessee
ITA No.288/M/2026 Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited that the double deduction was claimed due to inadvertent error remains uncontroverted. Further, there is no allegation that the assessee has withheld any material fact.
The conduct of the assessee in suo motu offering the income before detection assumes significance. Once the assessee itself has pointed out the mistake and offered the same to tax, it cannot be said that there was any intention to under-report income so as to attract penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the cases relied upon by the Ld. AR have also taken a consistent view that penalty u/s 270A is not leviable in cases where additions are made on account of bona fide mistakes and the assessee has voluntarily offered the income.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the addition made on account of double deduction does not fall within the ambit of under-reported income as envisaged u/s 270A of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27/04/2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member
Mumbai, Dated: 27/04/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary
ITA No.288/M/2026 Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T. By order
(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
More judgments on Section 270A
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026