Loading judgment…
Facts
During a search, undisclosed sales were detected, leading to a statement from the Managing Director admitting to receiving cash over and above the billed amount. An additional income was declared based on an estimated turnover, which was accepted by the AO during the assessment.
Held
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact limb of under-reporting or misreporting under Section 270A, making the penalty proceedings invalid. The Tribunal further noted that the income was determined based on estimation, which cannot be considered as under-reported income for levying penalty under Section 270A.
Key Issues
Whether penalty under Section 270A can be levied when income is determined based on estimation and without specifying the exact provisions of under-reporting or misreporting.
Sections Cited
270A, 143(1), 148, 153C, 132(4), 270A(1), 270A(2), 270A(6), 270A(8), 270A(9), 270A(10)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji dated 26.12.2023 vide DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1059014514(1) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “The Act”) for the assessment year ( in short “AY”) 2019-20.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
3. Before leaping straightway to the penalty proceedings, it is very much pertinent here to discuss with regard to the assessment proceedings for ease of understanding and appreciating the real facts which leads to the initiation of penalty proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a closely held private limited company engaged in the wholesale business of trading in gold jewellery. The assessee company filed its return of income on 31.10.2019 for the AY 2019-20 declaring total income of 1,08,17,950/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 02.12.2019 accepting the return income of Rs. 1,08,17,950/-.
4.1 Thereafter, warrant in this case has been issued primarily in the case of M/s. City Fashion Gold Jewellery group and search action conducted, as the assessee is one of the major suppliers to M/S Sultan Gold group of concerns and M/S City Gold Fashion jewellery and certain incriminating documents were found.
L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 3 of 17 4.2 On admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee, the observation of AO in the Para 6 of the assessment order are reproduced below for the ease of reference and convenience:
“6. Admission of undisclosed income
6.1 During search, a statement u/s. 132(4) was recorded on 28.06.2019 from Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain, Managing Director who in reply to Q. No. 15 stated that customers come with queries and when billing is done, the invoice is raised only for 70-75% of the value which is paid by RTGS or cheque and balance is paid for by cash or old gold/damaged gold which is unrecorded in the regular books of accounts. The assessee stated that they had made a declaration of the earlier year’s undisclosed income in the IDS scheme 2016 and hence sought to voluntarily admit additional income for the FY 2017-18 onwards on account of the findings of search as above.
6.2 The declaration of additional income has been worked out on GP of 3% as per the declared gross profits for the last two years on the undisclosed turnover which was estimated as being around 30% of the regular turnover reflected in the financial statements and declared to tax in the ITR”
4.3 Accordingly, the additional income on account of undisclosed turnover is quantified during the course of search proceeding for the AY 2019-20 and admitted at the rate of 3% of undisclosed turnover amounting to Rs. 2,88,00,000/-. Subsequent to the notice u/s. 153C of the Act, the assessee filed a return of income for the AY 2019-20 on 26.03.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,96,17,950/- as admitted during the course of assessment proceedings. Thereafter, the assessment was completed on 27.07.2021 on a total assessed income of Rs. 3,96,17,950/- u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act.
L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 4 of 17 4.4 On or before the completion of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, the AO initiated penalty proceedings with the following observation:
“Penalty notice u/s. 274 read with 270A is directed to be issued for underreported income in consequence of misreporting of income.”
4.5 The AO, thereafter issued notice dated 27.07.2021 u/s. 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act for the AY 2019-20 directing the assessee to show cause as to why an order imposing a penalty should not be made u/s. 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting.
4.6 Considering the penalty reply submitted by the assessee filed on 25.03.2022, the AO levied the penalty with the following observation which are reproduced below for the ease of reference and record:
“8. Conclusions drawn on the basis of material facts
The case was selected for scrutiny consequent upon search action for the specific purpose of examining evidences found during the course of search. This is also clearly a case of failure to record correct expenses and claiming substantiated expenses in the books of account and accounting correct income thereof apart from the fact that there is suppression of facts. But for search and consequent scrutiny of the case, there would have been no chance of detecting material evidences which resulted in declaration of undisclosed income for so many years.
8.1 The assessee did not voluntarily disclose the income and only after a search action and detection of material evidences, additional income was brought to tax. This is also clearly a case of misreporting due to suppression of facts while filing returns of income. But for search proceedings followed by scrutiny of the case
8.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings under section 270A was initiated. From a cursory glance of issues and sequence of events as noted above, it is very clear that the assessee has not furnished correct particulars of income and intended to evade taxes by devising dubious methods to mislead the department by making false entries of accounts. It is very clear from the above that the assessee has been deliberately furnishing details with the view to make wrongfull claims in the returns and evade taxes. Undisclosed income was detected in the assessee after search action. The assessee has deliberately attempted to evade tax dues of the department.
8.3 The contentions of the assessee with regard to non applicability of clause (a) to (e) below section 270A(8) is therefore required to be rejected in total for the detailed reasons mentioned above. Accordingly the case of assessee clearly fall under the purview of “Misreporting” and accordingly the assessee is liable for penalty u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961.
8.4 In view of the discussion as above, and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very well established that the assessee has miss reported income with the view to evade taxes and hence made himself liable for penalty under section 270A(1) r.w.s. 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subject to the above penalty proceedings under section 270A of the act, is disposed. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in levying penalty u/s. 270A(1) and Rs. 1,79,27,172 (200% of undisclosed tax of Rs. 89,63,586) is hereby levied as penalty for misreporting of income as per provisions of section 270A(1) read with section 270A(9) of the Income tax Act, 1961.”
L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 6 of 17 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order passed u/s 270A of the Act dated 30.03.2022, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act by AO amounting to Rs. 1,79,27,112/- mainly on the following grounds /observations:-
6.1 The ld. CIT(A) could not find any specific reference to the applicability of clause (a) to (g) of Sec 270A(2) to the present case. Further, when the AO invoked sub-section (8) of section 270A, he did not point out the specific clause in section 270A(9) that applies to the action of the appellant. Without making a reference to section 270A(9) or the clauses (a) to (f) of section 270A(9), the AO determined that there was under-reporting of income which is in consequence of mis-reporting.
6.2 Further, ld. CIT(A) examined the case on merits to check if the impugned order is otherwise sustainable and noted that sec. 270A(2)(a) is applicable as the income return u/s. 153C which was assessed and accepted, is greater than income determined u/s. 143(1).
6.3 The CIT(A) was also of the opinion that in order to prove that this is a case of mis-representation or suppression of facts, the AO ought to have brought out relevant search records to the extent of addition made or the penalty levied. On the contrary, there was no semblance of any reference to seized material 6.4 The assessee voluntarily admitted GP of 3% of the entire estimated unaccounted turnover of Rs. 96 crores. If 270A(9) were to be applied, the addition on suppression of sales should have been made entirely on the basis of the seized material found. In the L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 7 of 17 present case, income have been offered and tax on an estimation basis that whenever the appellant sells the jewellery, it approximately takes 30% of the consideration in cash and 70% through Banking channel and that the appellant has offered 3% as income being estimated gross profit on the basis of gross profit earned by the Appellant over the period of various past years, it is improper and illogical to impose penalty u/s. 270A(8) r.w.s. 270A(9).
6.5 The ld. CIT(A) held that the argument of the assessee is reasonable and acceptable. It is quite clear that when the income has been determined based on an estimate, the same cannot be considered to be under-reported income and accordingly deleted the penalty u/s 270A of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji dated 26.12.2023, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed the paper book comprising 58 pages containing various documents filed/produced before the Authorities below along with the list of citations relied upon by the assessee which are comprised of 69 pages.
Before us, the ld. JCIT-D.R. Sri V. Parithivel, fervently submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the AO has not at all resorted to any estimation and in fact the assessee has admitted and declared the said income which is based on the incriminating evidences seized during the search proceedings. Further, the ld. DR submitted that managing director of the assessee in his sworn statement admitted undisclosed sales @ 30% of total sales and accordingly admitted the additional income to the extent of 3% of the total undisclosed sales. Lastly, the ld. DR submitted that the penalty of Rs. 1,79,27,172/- was levied L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 8 of 17 for mis-reporting of income as per provisions of sec. 270A(1) r.w.s. 270A(9) of the Act due to the suppression of sales and the AO while initiating the penalty in the assessment order clearly mentioned the term mis-reporting of income.
The ld. AR of the assessee on the other hand supported the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji and reiterated the same grounds as placed before the lower authorities. Further, the AR submitted that no penalty for under-reporting can be imposed on the assessee in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (6) of section 270A of the Act as the assessee had duly provided the details and explanations called for by the AO during the assessment proceeding and the return of income was accepted without any additions. Further AR of the assessee submitted that there are plethora of decisions in which it is held that penalty u/s. 270A cannot be levied when the income is arrived at based on estimation. Lastly, the AR submitted that the AO did not specify any specific limb under which under-reporting as well as mis-reporting of the assessee’s case falls which is a clear gross violation of principles of natural justice.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The AO has passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 27.02.2021 by accepting the return income filed by the assessee on 26.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 3,96,17,950/- in response to notice u/s. 153C of the Act for the AY 2019-20. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings U/s 274 read with 270A of the Act with regard to under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. During the course of penalty proceedings the assessee submitted that there is no case of under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting as contained under the provisions of section 270A(6) of the Act. Further, the assessee contention is that L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 9 of 17 they had duly provided the details and explanations called for and the return was accepted and no addition was made to the return income. Further, the assessee has fully co-operated with the department for early completion of the assessment and all the taxes due has also been paid. Lastly, it was also submitted that the penalty for alleged under reporting of income cannot be imposed having regard to the provision of clause 270A(6)(b) and 270A(6)(c) of the Act as correct and complete income has been offered for taxation and no defect has been pointed out by the AO.
10.1 On going through the rationale in allowing the appeal of the assessee, we find that the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji is of the view that there is no specific reference to the applicability of clause (a) to (g) of section 270A(2) of the Act in the present case. Further, when the when AO invoked sub-section (8) of section 270A, he did not point out the specific clauses in section 270A(9) that applies to the action of the assessee. Without making a reference to section 270A(9) of the Act or the clauses (a) to (f) of section 270A(9) of the Act, AO determined that there was under-reporting of income which is in consequence of mis-reporting. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the argument of the assessee is reasonable and acceptable. It is quite clear that when the income has been determined based on an estimate, the same cannot be considered to be under-reported income and accordingly deleted the penalty u/s 270A of the Act.
10.2 For the purpose of evaluating the correctness of rival submissions addressed we deem it apposite to extract section 270A of the Act herein below:
270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. (1)The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 10 of 17 person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax, if any, on the under-reported income. (2)A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a)the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b)the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished or where return has been furnished for the first time under section 148; (c)the income reassessed is greater than the income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment; (d)the amount of deemed total income assessed or reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed total income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (e)the amount of deemed total income assessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished or where return has been furnished for the first time under section 148; (f)the amount of deemed total income reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed total income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment; (g)the income assessed or reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (3)The amount of under-reported income shall be,— (i)in a case where income has been assessed for the first time,— (a)if return has been furnished, the difference between the amount of income assessed and the amount of income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b)in a case where no return of income has been furnished or where return has been furnished for the first time under section 148,— (A)the amount of income assessed, in the case of a company, firm or local authority; and (B)the difference between the amount of income assessed and the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, in a case not covered in item (A); (ii)in any other case, the difference between the amount of income reassessed or recomputed and the amount of income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order: Provided that where under-reported income arises out of determination of deemed total income in accordance with the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, the amount L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 11 of 17 of total under-reported income shall be determined in accordance with the following formula— (A — B) + (C — D) where, A = the total income assessed as per the provisions other than the provisions contained in section 115JB or section 115JC (herein called general provisions); B = the total income that would have been chargeable had the total income assessed as per the general provisions been reduced by the amount of under-reported income; C = the total income assessed as per the provisions contained in section 115JB or section 115JC; D = the total income that would have been chargeable had the total income assessed as per the provisions contained in section 115JB or section 115JC been reduced by the amount of under-reported income: Provided further that where the amount of under-reported income on any issue is considered both under the provisions contained in section 115JB or section 115JC and under general provisions, such amount shall not be reduced from total income assessed while determining the amount under item D. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a)"preceding order" means an order immediately preceding the order during the course of which the penalty under sub-section (1) has been initiated; (b)in a case where an assessment or reassessment has the effect of reducing the loss declared in the return or converting that loss into income, the amount of under-reported income shall be the difference between the loss claimed and the income or loss, as the case may be, assessed or reassessed. (4)Subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), where the source of any receipt, deposit or investment in any assessment year is claimed to be an amount added to income or deducted while computing loss, as the case may be, in the assessment of such person in any year prior to the assessment year in which such receipt, deposit or investment appears (hereinafter referred to as "preceding year") and no penalty was levied for such preceding year, then, the under-reported income shall include such amount as is sufficient to cover such receipt, deposit or investment. (5)The amount referred to in sub-section (4) shall be deemed to be amount of income under-reported for the preceding year in the following order— (a)the preceding year immediately before the year in which the receipt, deposit or investment appears, being the first preceding year; and (b)where the amount added or deducted in the first preceding year is not sufficient to cover the receipt, deposit or investment, the year immediately preceding the first preceding year and so on. (6)The under-reported income, for the purposes of this section, shall not include the following, namely:— (a)the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide and the assessee has disclosed all the material facts to substantiate the explanation offered; (b)the amount of under-reported income determined on the basis of an estimate, if the accounts are correct and complete to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, but the method employed is such that the income cannot properly be deduced therefrom; (c)the amount of under-reported income determined on the basis of an estimate, if the assessee has, on his own, estimated a lower amount of addition or disallowance on the same issue, has included such amount in the computation of his income and has disclosed all the facts material to the addition or disallowance; (d)the amount of under-reported income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or sub-section (7), where under- reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9)The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a)misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b)failure to record investments in the books of account; (c)claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence; (d)recording of any false entry in the books of account; (e)failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and (f)failure to report any international transaction or any transaction deemed to be an international transaction or any specified domestic transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter X apply. (10)The tax payable in respect of the under-reported income shall be— (a)where no return of income has been furnished or where return has been furnished for the first time under section 148 and the income has been assessed for the first time, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as increased by the maximum amount not chargeable to tax as if it were the total income; L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 13 of 17 (b)where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is a loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total income; (c)in any other case, determined in accordance with the formula—(XY) where, X = the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as increased by the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or total income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order as if it were the total income; and Y = the amount of tax calculated on the total income determined under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 143 or total income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be.
10.3 Further in the present case as we read the order of assessment, we find that the AO initiated the penalty proceeding u/s 270A for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. There is even no whisper of the alleged income that is misreported or under-reported. Therefore, we are of the opinion that penalty proceeding has been initiated in a routine and casual manner without recording of proper satisfaction. Further, on going through the show cause notice issued dated 27.07.2021, we find that the AO simply wrote “it appears to be underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting” without reference to any underreported or misreported income. Further, even the AO while passing the penalty Order had only mentioned that this is clear case of misreporting due to suppression of facts without discussing anything under which limb of 270A(2) & 270A(9) of the Act, penalty proceedings was levied. In other words the AO himself was not clear as to which limb penalty proceedings was sought to be levied.
L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 14 of 17 10.4 Now coming to section 270A of the Act, on plain reading of the same, we are of the opinion that when a notice u/s 270A of the Act is issued the following stepladder should to be followed by the AO while levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act-
Underreporting – First the onus is on the AO to establish whether any of the contingency spoken of in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 270A(2) in the case of the assessee are attracted or not. If Yes, under which clause (limb) the assessee has underreported the income? 2. Now the onus shifted on the assessee to refute by establishing that the assessee falls within any of the clauses (a) to (e) of section 270A(6) of the Act & hence there is no underreporting of income & the proceedings end there. Section 270A(6) is a window given by the legislature to give a leave to the Assessee.
If the assessee is not able to controvert the charge of under reporting, the under reporting gets confirmed.
4. Once the charge of underreporting is confirmed, then the AO has to establish whether the underreporting is in consequence of any of the clauses (a) to (f) of Section 270A(9) of misreporting. If Yes, under which clause (limb) the assessee has misreported the income?
10.5 Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that without the charge of under reporting of income, the AO cannot straightaway jump with the charge of misreporting of income. In the present case the AO without even a whisper as to how the ingredient of sub- section (2) of section 270A is satisfied, has also not specifically mentioned the exact limb of misreporting as per section 270A(9) of the Act.
10.6 By respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors. (2022) 443 ITR 186, we are of the considered view that failure on the part of the AO to show cause which of the specific action of the assessee company from clause (a) to (f) of Section 270A(9) was determinant before imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Act has rendered the proceedings invalid and thus untenable in the eyes of law.
10.7 Therefore, it goes without saying that for the applicability of section 270A of the Act, the conditions stated therein must be strictly followed. A mere declaration of additional income which was estimated as being around 30% of regular turnover and even offered for taxation before the completion of assessment by itself will not amount to under reporting resulting in misreporting of income. We are of the opinion that penalty u/s 270A of the Act cannot be levied when the income was arrived at based on estimation. Further the return income was duly accepted by the AO as no other disallowance or additions were made to the returned income. Therefore we completely disagree with the argument of the ld. DR that AO has not resorted to any estimation since the additional income offered by the assessee which is solely based on estimation is utterly accepted by the AO. Eventually, the Income assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 153C of the Act is nothing but acceptance of Income based on complete estimation. Who had estimated the income is irrelevant especially when such income is accepted by both the parties. 10.8 In the present case, the assessee company filed the return of income for the AY 2019-20 on 26.03.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,96,17,950/- during the course of assessment proceedings.
L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 16 of 17 Thereafter, the assessment was completed on 27.07.2021 on the same total income declared by the assessee in its return of income amounting to Rs. 3,96,17,950/- u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. Considering the totality of the case, we are of the considered opinion that ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji has rightly observed that no adverse findings / additions have been recorded by the AO with regard to income offered during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, we also agree with the view of the ld CIT(A)-2, Panaji that the AO dejectedly failed to identify or determine and then communicate either through assessment order or through notice of the specific circumstance or incidence i.e. specific clause (a) to clause (g) of s/s (2) of section 270A within which the case of the appellant falls so as to hold income as under-reported to trigger the said penal provisions. The failure continued further in identifying or determining the show casing the specific action of the assessee in terms of clause (a) to clause (f) of s/s (9) of section 270A within which the such action of assessee falls so as to jacket or categorize such under-reported income is in consequence of mis- reporting. We are of the view that unless the person has been communicated the specific incidence vis-à-vis action triggering the imposition of penalty, it would drastically obstruct an assessee from enforcing his right to dismantle the charge alleged against him thus resulting into a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ladder as discussed in para-10.4 has to be followed strictly for levying the penalty u/s 270A of the Act.
10.9 We are further of the considered opinion that the penalty by hereditary nature is always discretionary. The legislature has used the word “may” in section 270A(1) of the Act which clearly says that it is discretionary on the part of the AO to levy penalty or not. We are also of the opinion that penalty is not at par with the tax and interest and therefore, penalty should not be levied in a light L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 17 of 17 hearted manner or in routine manner and not very additions/ disallowances are liable for penalty. The primary onus is on the revenue to prove that assessee falls under particular limb of default. The AO have to bring the case in the four corners of the sections in order to levy penalty which in our opinion, the AO failed to do so. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the explanation offered by the assessee is bonafide and the assessee has disclosed all material facts to substantiate the explanation during the course of assessment proceeding and accordingly no addition was made in the assessment proceedings.
In view of the above, we sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji in deleting the penalty u/s 270A of the Act and accordingly dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.