Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a revised return of income for AY 2022-23. During scrutiny, the AO disallowed excess deductions claimed under Chapter VIA, which the assessee admitted were erroneously claimed by the Chartered Accountant. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A for underreporting income due to misreporting.
Held
The Tribunal held that the erroneous claim, subsequently admitted and tax paid, did not fit the instances of misreporting under Section 270A(9). Following precedent, the Tribunal found that the AO should have exercised discretion not to impose penalty.
Key Issues
Whether penalty under Section 270A is leviable for an erroneous claim of deduction when the assessee admits the error and pays the tax, and if the Assessing Officer has discretion in imposing such penalty.
Sections Cited
270A, 250, 143(3), 148, 270A(1), 270A(2), 270A(9), 133BFA(3), 274
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & MS. PADMAVATHY.S
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short "the Act") dated 05.06.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. The only issue contended by the assessee is the levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act.
The assessee is an individual and employed with Citi Corp. Services India Pvt. Ltd. The assessee filed the return of income for A.Y 2022-23 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,42,700/-. The assessee subsequently revised the return on 14.08.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 9,22,063/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices duly served on the assessee. The A.O noticed that the assessee has claimed huge amount as deduction under Chapter-VIA. The assessee submitted before the A.O that the amount claimed is not correct and has been erroneously mentioned by the Chartered Accountant who filed the return of the assessee and paid the tax on the amount excess clained. The A.O while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act disallowed the amount excess claimed under Chapter-VIA. Subsequently, the A.O initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act stating that the assessee has underreported income which is inconsequence of misreporting thereof. The assessee submitted before the A.O that the claim has been made erroneously by the C.A and that the assessee has no intention of misreporting in any way. The assessee further submitted that the tax due on the amount wrongly claimed has been paid by the assessee even before the assessment was completed after noticing the erroneous claim and therefore, there is no intention to evade tax. The assessee accordingly prayed that the penalty proceedings be dropped. The A.O did not accept submissions of the assessee stating that the assessee's plea of ignorance of law cannot be accepted and the assessee should have noticed that when the tax has been correctly deducted by the employer, the return has been filed claiming huge amount as refund. Accordingly, the A.O levied a penalty at 200% of tax payable amounting to Rs.14,50,800/-. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee being a salaried employee was solely dependent on the tax consultant for filing return of income and that the assessee was not aware of the incorrect claim made under Chapter-VIA. The Ld. AR further submitted that during the course of assessment the assessee came to know of the wrong claim and immediately conceded before the A.O and has also paid tax on the same. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has no intention of evading any tax and that the claim was due to the negligence of the C.A which is beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AR argued that the levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act is not warranted in assessee's case. The Ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Archana Achyut Sail v. ITO (2025) 173 taxmann.com 52 (Mum.), where it has been held that:
1. for assessment year 2017- 18, we have carefully considered the submissions in the context of the findings recorded by the authorities below. It is necessary to note that the appellant is a retired employee of MTNL and had taken the assistance of a TRP in filing the return. She has claimed in her reply that she was unaware of the relevant provisions and fully relied upon the TRP in f iling the return in which certain deduction was claimed without her knowledge. In the first place, we find that both in the assessment order as well as the order passed by learned CIT(A), the findings is only about under-reporting of income. Sub-section (1) to Section 270A of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer “may” during the course of any proceedings direct that any person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay penalty in addition to tax, if any, on the under-reported income.
It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers (P.) Ltd. (supra) a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Pune has held that where neither in assessment order nor in notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act the Assessing Officer has specified as to under which limb of the provisions of Section 270A(2) or 270A(9) of the Act the assessee had misreported or under-reported his income, no penalty under Section 270A of the Act was leviable.
We find that the appeal has to succeed on the ground that the phraseology as used in Section 270 of the Act makes it discretionary/directory for the Assessing Officer to impose the penalty. In CIT vs Dodsal Ltd., 312 ITR 112 (Bombay), which was a case arising out of block assessment in a search case, the Bombay High Court has held that the use of word ‘may’ in Section 158BFA(2) [which is similarly worded to Section 270A(1)] confers discretion on the Assessing Officer to direct payment of penalty. Albeit such a discretion is not arbitrary and has to be guided by well-established principles depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, we find that the appellant-assessee is a retired employee of MTNL and had relied upon TRP to file her return. In the return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act, the appellant has made a voluntary disallowance and paid taxes on the amount of HRA. Considering the overall circumstances, we find that this is a fit case where the Assessing Officer could have exercised the discretion not to impose penalty. At the cost of repetition, we make it clear that the exercise of such discretion would depend upon the facts of each case and there cannot be any straightjacket formula in this regard. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to succeed.”
The ld. DR on the other hand, vehemently argued that the assessee had made the claim not only in the original return of income, but also in the revised return of income and therefore, the claim of the assessee that she is ignorant of the erroneous claim cannot be accepted. The Ld. DR thus prayed that the penalty levied for misreporting of income be sustained.
We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. The AO has levied penalty u/s.270A @ 200% stating that the assessee has under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof. Subsection (9) of section 270A contains the list of such instances and the relevant provisions read as under – “(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.”
The contention of the revenue is that the assessee should have noticed the incorrect claim when the return is filed with a huge refund. Clauses (a) to (f) enumerate the instances of misreporting of income attracting penalty under the said subsection. Accordingly, it must be examined whether, on the facts of the present case, the assessee’s case falls within any of the sub-clauses of Section 270A(9) of the Act so as to justify levy of penalty there under. In the present case, the CA of the assessee while filing the return of income has made erroneous claims under various sections of the Chapter VIA. The assessee during assessment when questioned on the claim admitted that it is an erroneous claim and paid the taxes on the same before completion of assessment. Therefore in our view the erroneous claim which is subsequently admitted for payment of tax, will not fit in any of the instances under subsection (9). Further in the case of Archana Achyut Sail (supra) the coordinate bench has laid down the ratio that the discretionary power to levy penalty u/s.270A is not arbitrary and has to be guided by well-established principles depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the considered view that the AO ought to have exercised the discretion not to impose penalty. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 17th day of December, 2025 at Chennai.