SHARAD SHISHIR KABRA,AHMEDBAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1) (3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 690/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sharad Shishir Kabra, filed an appeal against an order dated 23/01/2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (CIT(A)). The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal against a penalty order dated 20/08/2015, passed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The original assessment order, dated 15/02/2025, under Section 147 read with Section 144B, had made an addition of INR 8,00,000 by rejecting a deduction claimed under Section 80GGC for an alleged donation. The Assessing Officer also levied a penalty of INR 4,99,200 under Section 270A(9) of the Act. The assessee's appeal against this penalty order was dismissed by the CIT(A).

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for levying penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting, the Assessing Officer is required to establish that misreporting has occurred and that such misreporting falls within the specific cases enumerated in Section 270A(9)(a) to 270A(9)(g). The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer must specify the particular limb of Section 270A(9) under which the assessee is held to have misreported its income. This specification should be evident from the penalty order itself or unambiguously discernible from its reading. In the present case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 270A(9) without specifying the sub-limb, rendering the levy unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had deleted penalty in similar circumstances in the case of Hiro Mulchand Tanwani Vs. ITO and Nisha Yogeshkumar Darji Vs. Income Tax Officer. Consequently, the penalty of INR 4,99,200 was deleted. All grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty levied under Section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be sustained when the Assessing Officer has not specified the particular sub-limb of Section 270A(9) under which the penalty was levied? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the penalty under Section 270A(9) cannot be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact sub-limb of Section 270A(9) under which the penalty was imposed. The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 270A(2)(a),Section 270A(2)(g),Section 270A(6)(a),Section 270A(7),Section 270A(8),Section 270A(9),Section 270A(9)(a),Section 270A(9)(g),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 80GGC

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 Assessee against the Order, dated 23/01/2026, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 20/08/2015, passed under Section 270A of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee has raised three grounds. All the grounds raised by the Assessee are directed against the levy of penalty under Section 270A(9) of the Act which was conf

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 4,123 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →