PAY5X INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, BAREILLY vs. ITO-2(2),BAREILLY-NEW, BAREILLY

ITA 600/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 September 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee's counsel submitted that the present appeal (ITA No. 600/LKW/2026) was a duplicate filing, erroneously registered due to a technical error on the ITAT e-filing portal. The same email address, when entered in different cases (lower case vs. upper case), resulted in two separate user registrations and consequently, a duplicate appeal. The assessee had already filed a valid and correct appeal (ITA No. 542/LKW/2026) for the same assessee, subject matter, and assessment year. Therefore, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the present appeal. The Revenue's counsel had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal, in light of the facts and circumstances narrated by the assessee's counsel, permitted the appeal (ITA No. 600/LKW/2026) to be withdrawn and treated it as dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, PAY5X INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, which had dismissed the assessee's appeal against a penalty levied under section 270A for Assessment Year 2023-24. The penalty was levied on 20.09.2025, and the CIT(A)'s order was dated 19.01.2026. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was delayed by 43 days, which was condoned due to the director's illness. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal, stating it was a duplicate filing. The assessee had previously filed an appeal (ITA No. 542/LKW/2026) for the same matter and assessment year, which was registered and pending. The current appeal (ITA No. 600/LKW/2026) was filed erroneously due to a technical error on the e-filing portal where the same email address, entered in different cases, was treated as distinct user registrations, leading to a duplicate filing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the statutory preconditions for levying penalty under Section 270A were fulfilled by the Assessing Officer (AO)? The assessee argued that the AO failed to fulfill the mandatory conditions prescribed in Section 270A, rendering the penalty bad in law. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 2. Whether under-reporting or misreporting of income was established by the AO? The assessee contended that the AO failed to establish the necessary ingredients for attracting the penal provisions of Section 270A, and the finding of under-reporting or misreporting was erroneous. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 3. Whether the voluntary payment of taxes demonstrated bonafide conduct disentitling the AO from levying penalty? The assessee argued that it had voluntarily deposited the entire tax liability along with interest before the penalty notice, indicating bonafide conduct. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 4. Whether the absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars satisfied the ingredients of 'under-reporting' under Section 270A(2) and 'misreporting' under Section 270A(9)? The assessee argued that without concealment or inaccurate particulars, the essential ingredients for under-reporting and misreporting were not met. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 5. Whether the case falls under the exception provided in Section 270A(6) where no penalty is leviable? The assessee contended that the variation in income arose from a bonafide difference of opinion on legal interpretation, thus falling under the exception. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 6. Whether the penalty order lacked clear and cogent reasoning? The assessee argued that the penalty order was passed without specific satisfaction or reasoning, rendering it invalid. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 7. Whether mens rea or wilful default was established by the Revenue? The assessee argued that for quasi-criminal proceedings, the Revenue must prove wilful concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which was not done. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 8. Whether the penalty order violated principles of natural justice and was mechanically passed? The assessee argued that its explanations and evidence were not considered, making the order arbitrary. The revenue's contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 270A(2),Section 270A(6),Section 270A(9),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 19.01.2026, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the penalty levied under section 270A for the assessment year 2023-24 on 20.09.2025. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. Non-fulfillment of statutory preconditions [Section 270A): The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying penalty under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without fulfilling the mandatory conditions prescribed therein. The penalty is, therefore, bad in law and liable to be deleted.

2.

No under-reporting/ misreporting established: The finding of alleged under- reporting or misreporting of income i

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →