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

ITA 485/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 September 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to be heard but did not appear. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided any supporting documents to substantiate its claim that it had not underreported or misreported income by claiming wrong deductions/exemptions. The statement of facts filed by the assessee before the Tribunal did not contain any supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an assessee must provide supporting evidence to substantiate claims of not underreporting or misreporting income, especially when facing penalty proceedings under Section 270A, and failure to do so leads to dismissal of appeal. The Tribunal did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajeev Pratap, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ranchi Bench, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The NFAC had confirmed a penalty of INR 5,90,619/- levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's return declared 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 Act, increasing the total income to ₹ 1,73,11,130/-. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A were initiated for underreporting and misreporting of income concerning excess HRA of ₹ 2,04,720/- and long-term capital gain of ₹ 37,09,974/-. The AO imposed the penalty, which the CIT(A) upheld.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty of INR 5,90,619/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 270A of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed, considering the additions made in the assessment order do not automatically warrant penalty, and the alleged under-reporting arose from differences in computation and interpretation of law, not misrepresentation or suppression of facts (Section 270A(9)). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the excess claim of HRA exemption as 'misreporting of income' under Section 270A(9) when primary facts were disclosed, and in confirming penalty on alleged under-reporting of Long-Term Capital Gain without appreciating that the issue involved reconciliation and computation, not deliberate concealment (Section 270A). 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Section 270A requires a clear finding of under-reporting and misreporting, which is absent, and erred in upholding the penalty despite the absence of proper satisfaction by the AO and violation of natural justice by denying an adequate opportunity to be heard (Section 270A read with Section 274). Assessee's Contentions: The additions made by the AO were due to differences in interpretation, incomplete reconciliation, and absence of proper opportunity. There was no concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant failed to substantiate claims. Penalty provisions are penal and must be construed strictly; no penalty can be levied merely because a claim was not accepted. The penalty order and appellate order are vitiated for want of proper jurisdictional satisfaction. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. 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 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 →