GOPALKRISHNA NARLA RAO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6488/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 March 2026AY 2015-2016Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's revised income computation was due to inadvertent errors and bona fide mistakes, not a deliberate attempt to furnish inaccurate particulars. Given the facts and judicial precedents, the assessee was given the benefit of doubt.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a practicing Chartered Accountant, filed a return declaring income, which was selected for limited scrutiny. During assessment, inadvertent computational errors were identified, leading to a revised computation offering higher income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment, and later initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars is leviable when the assessee corrects the inaccuracies through a revised computation due to bona fide mistakes, especially when no variation exists between the revised income and the assessed income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 142(1),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G-” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri M Subramnian
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- DR
Hearing: 22.01.2026

Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President:

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 14.07.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi confirming penalty imposed of Rs.6,17,612/- under section (u/s.) 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. At the outset, we observe, present appeal is delayed by 10 days. Seeking condonation of delay, the assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit.

2 Gopalkrishna Narla Rao

It is the say of the assessee that due to heavy rains on 15th and 16th August, 2025 his office was flooded, resulting in damage to computer systems and records. It is submitted, being a p

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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →