INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARAG CHANDULAL PARIKH, AHMEDABAD

ITA 431/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 September 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in Hiro Mulchand Tanwani Vs. ITO and Siddharth Laxminkant Vaderkar Vs. Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not specified under which sub-limb of Section 270A(9) the penalty for underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting was levied. Following the precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to depart from the view taken by the co-ordinate benches. The penalty of INR 37,440/- levied under Section 270A was deleted. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of the Learned CIT(A). All grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 18/12/2025, which partly allowed the assessee's appeal against a penalty order dated 13/06/2025 passed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2019-2020. The assessee had initially claimed a deduction of INR 90,000 under Section 80GGC for donations to the Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular). Following a search action revealing that certain unrecognized political parties were involved in a scam of soliciting bogus donations, reassessment proceedings were initiated. The assessee withdrew the deduction, and the Assessing Officer accepted the revised income. However, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of INR 37,440 under Section 270A for misreporting of income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 37,440/- levied under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income, without appreciating that the assessee knowingly claimed a bogus deduction of Rs. 90,000/- under Section 80GGC. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the CIT(A)'s order, which was upheld, noted that the Assessing Officer had not specified how the assessee misreported or underreported income and had levied the penalty without giving reasons. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty as the assessee had knowingly claimed a bogus deduction of Rs. 90,000/- under Section 80GGC. The Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) was identified as a registered unrecognized political party (RUPPs) involved in providing accommodation entries and returning donations in cash in lieu of commission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 80GGC,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 270A(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the Order, dated 18/12/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 13/06/2025, passed under Section 270A of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Penalty of Rs.37,440/-

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 →