MRINALINI JAYANT PURANIK,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1790/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 November 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed an application for immunity under Section 270AA of the Act, but the Assessing Officer failed to pass an order within the stipulated time. Following the Delhi High Court's decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant immunity to the assessee and cancel the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file her return of income for assessment year 2019-20, despite receiving income of Rs. 2,63,15,529/-. After a notice under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 70,13,970/-. The Assessing Officer accepted the returned income but initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act is justified when the assessee applied for immunity under Section 270AA and the Assessing Officer failed to adjudicate the application within the prescribed time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 270A,Section 274,Section 270AA,Section 139,Section 273B,Section 271(1)(c),Section 144B,Section 249,Section 264,Section 276C,Section 276CC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
For Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.05.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2019-20. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.10,96,347/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income for the impugned assessment year. Since as per the TDS

2 statement the assessee has received various income to the tune of Rs.2,63,15,529/-, the Assessing Office

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →