MAHAVIR REALTIES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 135/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable because the lower authorities did not specify which limb of Section 270A(9) the assessee's default fell under. This failure vitiates the penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to disclose interest income of Rs. 21,84,353/-. The lower authorities levied a 200% penalty for under-reporting and mis-reporting of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 270A is valid when the specific limb of mis-reporting is not identified by the assessing officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

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

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 23.04.2024Pronounced: 24.04.2024

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2017- 2018, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058210210(1), dated 24.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.270 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the learned lower

1.

2 ITA.No.135/PUN./2024 authorities action levying “200%” penalty thereby regarding non-disclosure of interest income of Rs.21,84,353/-; during the course of quantum assessment, amounted to “under reporting” of the total income as a consequence to “mis- reporting” u/sec.270A(8) and (9) of the Act. Mr. Murkunde vehemently argued that this is a clear-cut instance wherein the learned departmental authorities have found the assessee not to have disclosed it’s impugned interest income which attracts the penalty proceedings in question.

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contentions in support of their respective stands. We find no reason to sustain the impugned penalty for the precise reason that although the legislature has stipulated specific clauses (a) and (f) to sub-sec.(9); to be read with sub-sec.(8) of sec.270A; learned lower authorities have no where pinpointed as to which limb the assessee had committed it’s default attracting “under-reporting” as a consequence of “mis-reporting”. That being the case, not only hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that such a failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings [in old scheme], but also the very principle applies qua this new scheme of sec.270A applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2017 for assessment year 2017-2018 onwards as 3 ITA.No.135/PUN./2024 per Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Ltd., vs. ACIT [2022] 443 ITR 186 (Delhi). We thus accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance in very terms to conclude that the learned lower authorities have not specified the corresponding limb in their respective orders. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.04.2024.

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →