THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that there was neither under-reporting nor misreporting of income. The deletion of the major addition under Section 80P was a key factor in this decision.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty under Section 270A by the CIT(A). The penalty was imposed for alleged under-reporting and misreporting of income, primarily related to disallowances under Sections 40(a)(ia), 80G, and 80P(2)(d).
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 270A is leviable when the primary addition forming the basis of penalty has been deleted by the appellate authority, and whether the assessee's actions constituted under-reporting or misreporting of income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC14 citing152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT
- Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. v. Pr. CIT5 citing158 Taxmann.com 184 · 2024
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: April 29th, 2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 02.07.2024, 6.5 Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. Vs NFAC (2023) (152 taxmann.com 382) (Mumbai Trib.) has held that where Assessing Officer made addition under section 43CA read with section 56(2) (x), case of assessee did not fall in category of under reporting of income and moreover since in penalty notice under section 270A revenue had failed to specify limb "under-reporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which penalty proceedings had been initiated, entire proceeding was not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason. ……………………………………… ……………………………………… 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the prevailing position of law, I find that this is a not a case of under-reporting or misreporting of income, within the meaning of section 270A of the Act. The alleged under-reporting by way of making an incorrect claim in law, was purely a result of oversight, for which a bonafide explanation was offered by the appellant. This is not a case of misrepresentation or suppression of facts, as all the relevant and material facts were already on record. Therefore, the action of AO in levying penalty of Rs. 1,43,036/- under section 270A at the rate of 50 percent of tax payable on under-reported income is not sustained. Further, the action of AO in levying penalty of Rs. 1,00,18,578/- under section 270A at the rate of 200 percent of tax payable on under-reporting in consequence of misreported income is also not sustained, as the related disallowance of deduction under section 80P has itself been deleted in appeal. Accordingly, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is directed to delete the aggregate penalty of Rs. 1,01,61,614/- levied under section 270A, on these accounts. These grounds of appeal
are allowed.
8. In Ground No. (4), the appellant has sought leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend or to raise additional grounds of appeal. No such option has been exercised by the appellant during the appeal proceedings and hence, this ground does not require any adjudication.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.”
4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before this Tribunal.
More judgments on Section 270A
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Bamaniya vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary Ministry Of Home AffairsMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Patidar vs. Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Lokesh vs. Bank Of Maharashtra Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Arvind Lunawat vs. Axis Bank LimitedMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026