Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee had inadvertently claimed an excess deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, which it later suo-motto withdrew. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which was subsequently deleted by the CIT(A).
Held
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, noting that the issue was identical to a previous assessment year (AY 2011-12) where the penalty was also deleted. The tribunal applied the principle of consistency.
Key Issues
Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is leviable when the assessee suo-motto withdraws an inadvertently claimed excess deduction, especially when a similar penalty was deleted in a prior assessment year.
Sections Cited
Section 80IA, Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 40A(ia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 19.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.
Heard both the parties at length. The claim of the assessee was that it had suo-motto withdrew the inadvertent amount of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act however, the AO has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by AO which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).
Ld. CIT (A) by observing that under identical circumstances, penalty levied for AY 2011-12 was deleted by his predecessor. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the order for AY 2011-12 wherein penalty levied under identical circumstances, was deleted which facts has not been controverted by the Revenue. The relevant observation of ld. CIT(A) while deleting the penalty are reproduced as under:-
DECISION: 6.1 “The impugned made in the case of the appellant by an order of regular assessment passed on the basis of quantum addition 19.12.2016. This order of quantum addition was passed u/s 143(3). During the appellate proceeding in the appeal filed against this order of quantum addition, the CIT(A), Dehradun vide its order DIN & Order: Appeal No. 10577/CIT(A)/DDN/2016-17 dated 26.04.2017 has confirm the addition made by AO in assessment order and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6.2 AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income on part of the assessee for a sum of Rs.5,76,34,588/- (Rs. 5,74,49,588/-excess claimed u/s 801A and Rs. 1,85,000/- expenses) minimum penalty @100% tax of amount Rs. 1,95,90,100/- was levied in this case. In this case AO has levied penalty for furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) regarding excess claim of Rs.5,74,49,588/- u/s 80IA and Rs. 1,85,000/- as expenses disallowed u/s 40A(ia). In the identical set of facts CIT(A), Dehradun in assessee's own case for assessment year 2011-12 has deleted penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In light of the case laws cited by the assessee, findings of CIT(A) for assessment year 2011-12 and the case laws cited by the assessee, penalty of Rs.1,95,90,100/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) is deleted.”
In the light of aforesaid facts and considering the fact that the issue is identical in the year under appeal thus, by following the principal of consistency, penalty levied in the year under appeal u/s 271(1) of the Act is rightly deleted by ld. CIT(A) which order is hereby confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.03.2026.