GOPU NEELIMA,NNDIGAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), VIJAYAWADA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that there was a suppression of turnover by the assessee. They agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had misreported the turnover, attracting penalty provisions under Section 270A, and found no infirmity in the order.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared a lower turnover in her income tax return compared to her VAT returns. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated income based on the higher VAT turnover, and the CIT(A) confirmed this addition and levied a penalty under Section 270A.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee had suppressed turnover and whether the penalty levied under Section 270A was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 270A,Section 44AD,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1043829396(1), dated 13/7/2022 arising out of the order passed U/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AY 2017-18.
Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual filed her return of income on 7/11/2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,76,650/- for the AY 2017-18. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the issue of “cash deposits during the year”.
Subsequently notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 24/9/2018 was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently, the notice U/s. 142(1) dated 23/7/2019 and 9/10/2019 were issued and served on the assessee electronically. Due to change in the incumbent another notice U/s. 142(1) dated 21/10/2019 was issued and served on the assessee. Since the assessee did not comply with the notices, the Ld. AO initiated proceedings U/s. 272A(1)(d) dated 19/11/2019 and levied the penalty vide order dated 22/11/2019. Further, notice dated 31/10/2019 and 30/11/2019 and 6/12/2019 were issued and served on the assessee. In response, the assessee furnished copy of bank account statement and justified that she sold and purchased the goods as shown in the VAT return. The Ld. AO noticed that the assessee filed return of income U/s. 44AD of the Act by declaring income @ 8% on a turnover of Rs. 58,22,000/-. The Ld. AO on scrutinizing the VAT returns found that the assessee declared turnover of Rs.1,73,88,702/- and has paid VAT tax accordingly. The Ld. AO found that the sources for cash deposits is nothing but the turnover, which was also accepted by the assessee, and estimated the income @ 8% on the turnover of Rs. 1,73,88,702/- as declared in VAT returns and framed the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 13,91,096/-. Subsequently, the Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 270A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC the Authorized Representative argued that it was the mistake of the Accountant by wrongly declaring the turnover at Rs. 58,22,000/- while filing the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC on perusal of the submissions of the assessee found the explanation offered by the assessee is not bonafide and confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of penalty U/s. 270A raised by the assessee for Rs. 4,44,130/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in her appeal:
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 4,44,130/- levied by the assessing officer u/s. 270A of the Act. 3. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us the same argument as it is a mistake done by the assessee’s Accountant by wrongly declaring the turnover at Rs. 58,22,000/- while admitting the income U/s. 44AD of the Act. However, the Ld. AR submitted before us the Profit & Loss Account showing admitted profit as disclosed in the return of income.
The Ld. AR further submitted that the turnover as per the VAT return has been considered in the P & L Account and hence there is no change in the profit as admitted but it is only a clerical mistake by the Accountant of the assessee while showing the turnover at Rs. 58,22,000/- in the return of income filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Accountant has estimated the turnover on reverse basis without considering the VAT turnover. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has accepted the estimated profit of 8% on the VAT turnover @ 13,91,000/- and pleaded that there is no misreporting in the return of income and hence the penalty levied U/s. 270A of the Act be quashed.
Per contra, the Ld. Sr. AR [Departmental Representative] submitted that the assessee has willfully underreported the turnover and has produced the Profit & Loss Account showing the same as profit as filed in in her return of income. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Profit & Loss Account is an afterthought by the assessee and the income is declared under presumptive basis U/s. 44AD of the Act, where Turnover is the basis for estimating income on presumptive basis. Countering the arguments of the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an illiterate lady not having any knowledge in the accounting and heavily depended on the local Accountant at Nandigama. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has not considered the above fact.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Authorities below. Admittedly, there is a suppression of turnover by the assessee while filing her return of income by declaring the income of Rs. 3,76,650/- U/s. 44AD of the Act. Section 44AD is a presumptive taxation where 8% of the turnover is taxed as income. It is not acceptable by us that the assessee’s Accountant has mis-reported the turnover by reverse working. Further, we are also unable to understand when the profits are declared under presumptive basis, why the Profit & Loss Account was prepared showing the same profit as filed under the return of income. Further, the assessee has also not disputed the VAT turnover and the estimation of income on the VAT turnover by the Ld. AO. In the light of the above circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has rightly determined that the assessee has mis- reported the turnover attracting the penal provisions u/s. 270A of the Act and hence confirmed the penalty of Rs. 4,44,130/- u/s. 270A of the Act levied by the Ld. AO. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and hence no interference is required. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 06th March, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (दु�वू� आर.एल रे�डी) (एस बालाकृ�णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) �या�यकसद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 06.03.2023 OKK - SPS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- �नधा�रती/ The Assessee – Gopu Neelima, D.No.3-43, Opp. CI Office, 1. Raitupeta, Nandigama, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. राज�व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), CR Bu8ilding, 2. 1St Floor Annex, MG Road, Vijayawada.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, �वशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, 5. Visakhapatnam गाड� फ़ाईल / Guard file 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026