CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify which limb of Section 270A was attracted and how the ingredients of sub-section (9) were satisfied. The Tribunal quashed the penalty order and directed the AO to consider the assessee's application for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deductions under Section 80E and exemption under Section 10(13A) in their original return, which were later disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to lack of supporting evidence. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A for underreporting income due to misreporting.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 270A was rightly imposed for underreporting of income due to misreporting, and whether the assessee was eligible for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA.
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.
- Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC32 citing142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · HC
- IBS Software (P.) Ltd. v. UOI5 citing158 Taxmann.com 209 · 2024 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order passed by NFAC dated 30.08.2023 for A.Y. 2020-21 on following grounds of appeal:
Page 2 ITA Nos. 832/Bang/2023 & 143/Bang/2024 Tax effect relating Grounds of Appeal to each Ground of appeal (See note below) The orders of the honorable National Faceless Appeal centre in so far as they are against the 1. appellant, are opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. The appellant denies itself for levy of penalty 2. of Rs. 15,95,172/- for the year under considerati
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- St. Josephs Institute of Science and… vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), ChennaiChennai6 Jun 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A of the Act for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 was unsustainable. The primary reason was that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) was vagu...
- Chiguruvada Dileep Kumar, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore27 May 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify which limb of Section 270A was attracted and how the ingredients of sub-section (9) were satisfied. The Tribunal quashed the penalty order and directed the AO to consider t...
- Shri S Manoharan, Coimbatore vs DCIT, Central Circle - 2, CoimbatoreChennai28 Feb 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21, the due date for filing returns had not expired at the time of the search, so it could not be presumed that the income would not have been disclosed. Therefore, the pen...
- Urmila Rajendra Mundra, Ajmer vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), AjmerJaipur1 Aug 2025Allowed
Also relies on Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC
The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as the assessee had provided supporting documents for the claim, and the AO's assertion of no evidence was incorrect. The penalty was set aside based on similar High ...
- Mustafa Alihusain Sunelwala, Pune vs ITO, Ward-14(1), PunePune16 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice did not specify which limb of Section 270A was attracted and that the assessee's claims were due to inadvertent mistakes rather than misreporting. Therefore, the penalty was not ...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
