HOTEL RADHIKA ,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the penalty was restored to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty order was also remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment of the penalty.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment at a higher income, making disallowances and additions. Subsequently, a penalty was levied under Section 270A for misreporting of income.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty levied under Section 270A is sustainable when the quantum appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for denovo assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.11.2023 confirming the levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) for the assessment year 2018-19.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Partnership firm. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 29.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.2,37,630/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) at a total income of Rs.11,11,618/-. While doing so, the AO made the disallowance of interest on remuneration paid to partners of Rs.7,95,058/- and also made addition of Rs.78,930/, being interest on income-tax refund. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty of Rs.4,91,346/- u/s.270A of the Act on account of misreporting of income.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
We heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. The quantum appeal – in respect of which the penalty was levied u/s.270A was restored to the file of CIT(A). Therefore, in the fitness of things, in our considered view, this penalty order shall also be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo assessment of penalty in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on this 31st day of May, 2024.
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 →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026