RAJEEV PRATAP,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 1(1), RANCHI, JHARKHAND

ITA 485/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 September 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to be heard, but no one appeared. The Tribunal observed that the assessee, in its statement of facts filed along with the appeal memo, did not provide any supporting documents to substantiate its claim that it had not underreported or misreported income by claiming wrong deductions/exemptions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and concluded that there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; all grounds were addressed by the dismissal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajeev Pratap, filed an income tax return for Assessment Year 2022-23 on July 31, 2022, declaring a total income of ₹1,33,96,440. The case was selected for scrutiny due to discrepancies in salary income and large deductions/exemptions claimed. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, increasing the total income to ₹1,73,11,130. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A were initiated for alleged underreporting and misreporting of income concerning excess HRA of ₹2,04,720 and long-term capital gain of ₹37,09,974. The AO imposed a penalty of ₹5,90,619. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (CIT(A)), confirmed the penalty, holding that the assessee made wrong claims and wrongly claimed HRA exemption under Section 10(13A). The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty of INR 5,90,619 levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be quashed, considering the grounds raised by the assessee? 2. Whether the additions made in the assessment order automatically warrant the imposition of penalty under Section 270A? 3. Whether the alleged under-reporting of income arose from differences in computation and interpretation of law, rather than misrepresentation or suppression of facts? 4. Whether the excess claim of HRA exemption constitutes 'misreporting of income' under Section 270A(9) when primary facts were disclosed? 5. Whether the penalty on alleged under-reporting of Long-Term Capital Gain is justified, given the issue involved reconciliation and computation without deliberate concealment? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the additions were due to differences in interpretation, incomplete reconciliation, and absence of proper opportunity. They contended there was no concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee also argued that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant failed to substantiate claims, and that penalty provisions are penal and require strict construction. They further claimed the penalty order and appellate order were vitiated for want of proper jurisdictional satisfaction and that principles of natural justice were violated due to denial of an adequate opportunity of being heard. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, represented by the learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR), supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 10(13A),Section 143(3),Section 270A(9),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR
Hearing: 03/09/2026Pronounced: 25/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 22/10/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty of INR 5,90,619/- u/s 270A of the Act is bad in law, contrary to the facts of the case and liable to be quashed.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act without appreciating that the additions made in the assessment order do not automatically warrant impositio

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 →