SHAMSUNDER PRITESH MALODE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 399/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 October 2026AY 2020-2110 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, is an individual who failed to file a return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, upon noticing salary income of Rs. 43,61,695/-. After an order under Section 148A(d) and a notice under Section 148, the assessee filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 35,40,270/-. The AO passed an assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B, confirming the declared income. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 270A were initiated, and a penalty of Rs. 18,19,128/- was levied for under-reporting and misreporting of income. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to admit the additional grounds, as they were legal in nature and the facts were on record. The assessee pressed only additional ground no. 2, concerning the validity of the penalty proceedings under Section 270A. The Tribunal considered the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, both the assessment order and the penalty notice dated 10.02.2025 expressly stated that penalty proceedings were being initiated for 'under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income.' The Tribunal interpreted the Delhi High Court's decision to mean that the notice must communicate whether the penalty is for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting.' It held that the present notice, by clearly stating 'under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income,' adequately informed the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the notice was not vague merely because it did not cite a particular clause of Section 270A(9). Accordingly, additional ground no. 2 was dismissed. As only this ground was pressed, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148 issued on 18.06.2024 is invalid due to contravention of Section 151 of the Act, rendering penalty proceedings liable to be quashed? 2. Whether the notice issued under Section 270A of the Act is invalid due to ambiguity, as it did not specify the exact limb of Section 270A(9) invoked? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it contravened Section 151, making the penalty proceedings invalid. (Additional Ground 1) - The assessee contended that the penalty notice under Section 270A was ambiguous because it failed to specify the particular clause of Section 270A(9) under which the alleged misreporting fell. The assessee relied on the decisions in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Divya Burman Vs. AU, and Ghanta Srinivas Vs. DCIT. (Additional Ground 2) Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities and opposed the assessee's contentions. - The revenue argued that the assessment order and penalty notice clearly stated the initiation of proceedings for 'under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income,' making the assessee aware of the basis. The revenue cited Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT, arguing it did not require the AO to mention the particular clause of Section 270A(9) in every notice. The revenue also relied on N.A.M. Expressway Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Megnaquest Technologies Ltd Vs. DCIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 274,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 17/09/2026

Per Madhusudhan Sawdia, A.M:. This appeal is filed by Shri Shamsunder Pritesh Malode (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 30.01.2026 for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No 399 of 2026 Shamsunder Pritesh Malode

3.

The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds befor

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 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →