“under-reporting of income”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A402 judgments

The decision most relied on for under-reporting of income is CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (275 ITR 113), cited in 38 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on under-reporting of income

CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal

275 ITR 113 · 2005 · High Court

citing judgments

The omission by an Income Tax Officer to initiate penalty proceedings during the assessment, when there is an observation of under-reporting or mis-reporting of income, renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, granting the Commissioner jurisdiction to revise such an order under Section 263.

Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.

443 ITR 186 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed if the Assessing Officer fails to specify which clause under Section 270A(9) applies and fails to show cause to the assessee accordingly. Strict adherence to the conditions of Section 270A is mandatory for its applicability.

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income cannot be sustained if additions are made under Section 56(2)(x) and the penalty notice fails to specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated.

Company Limited 432 ITR 84 (Del); 4. Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT

145 Taxmann.com 665 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Immunity from penalty under Section 270AA may be granted if the assessment order is silent on how the ingredients of Section 270A(9) are satisfied, and the penalty notice fails to specify whether the penalty is for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting' of income.

GR Infraprojects Ltd. v. ACIT

158 Taxmann.com 80 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 270A cannot be sustained without the Assessing Officer specifying the exact charge against the assessee, including which part of section 270A(9) is attracted. Immunity under section 270AA may be granted if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the relevant sub-clause of section 270A(9) or mechanically passes an order without considering the assessee's replies.

DCIT v. Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers (P.) Ltd.

171 Taxmann.com 133 · 2025 · Reported

citing judgments

Penalty under section 270A is not leviable in the absence of specifying the sub-clause of section 270A(9) under which the penalty is initiated.

Judgments citing under-reporting of income

Vvf (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4840/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2Section 92B

erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act for the alleged under-reporting of income. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary, any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time

Kolluru Venkatesh, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1193/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Kolluru Venkatesh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Secunderabad. Ward – 11(3), Hyderabad. Pan : Cdopk7445J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 4Section 40A(3)Section 80CSection 80D

proof was provided for the 80D deduction, resulting in the disallowance of the entire deduction. Penalty proceedings under section 270A for under-reporting of income and section 272A(1)(d) for failure to comply with notices under section 4 142(1) were initiated separately. Finally, Assessing Officer completed the assessment

Hiranand Family Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6335/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrihiranand Family Trust V/S. Ito Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai 6Th Floor, Mistry Bhavan, बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Dinshaw Vaccha Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra Churchgate, Mumbai- East, Mumbai-400051 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mumh10606B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 139(9)Section 250Section 270ASection 44A

accept the assessee’s clarification and proceeded to pass the assessment order wherein penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income were initiated. (iii) During the penalty proceedings, the assessee reiterated its contention that there was no malafide intent in claiming the refund in the revised ... rectifying the mistake of claiming refund by showing nil income, and therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed by the Ld. AO for purposely under-reporting the income. P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2018-19 Hiranand Family Trust Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

Infoanalytica Consulting Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the penalty u/s

ITA 1592/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 40

s.68,277/- Accordingly, the AO has recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act, for “under-reporting of income which is in consequences of mis-reporting of income”. In the penalty proceedings, after taking the submission of the assessee on record, the AO confirmed the penalty ... under-reporting of income which is in consequences of mis-reporting thereon” for a sum equal to 200% of the amount of tax payable as per the provisions of section 270A(8) of the Act. While passing the order the AO made the following observations: 5. As the assessee

Sri. Peter Paul Mariappa, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2037/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate

Section 270A

above, the appellant denies himself liable to penalty imposed u/s. 270A of the Act of Rs. 5,70,498/- for the alleged under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting in respect of the disallowance of Rs. 9,14,253/- made in the assessment order under the facts

Silver Oak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT-6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 200% of the amount of tax payable on under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting as per the provisions of section 270A of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC sustained the penalty

Vedant Properties, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2216/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 274

find the Assessing Officer levied the penalty of Rs.6,37,912/- u/s 270A of the Act on account of under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting. We find the Ld. CIT(A) /NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore vs. L Javerchand Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1542/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 274

assessee to show cause as to why an order imposing a penalty should not be made u/s. 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting. 4.6 Considering the penalty reply submitted by the assessee filed on 25.03.2022, the AO levied the penalty with ... making a reference to section 270A(9) or the clauses (a) to (f) of section 270A(9), the AO determined that there was under-reporting of income which is in consequence of mis-reporting. 6.2 Further, ld. CIT(A) examined the case on merits to check if the impugned order

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1632/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

ITA Nos. 1629 to 1632&1654/Bang/2024 M/s. Sri Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “C

Malcolm Darayes Pestonji, Vasai, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3431/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (Sr. DR)

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

order passed u/s 143(3) by the Assessing Officer, the ld.CIT(A) initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act on account of under-reporting of income during the relevant year which was as a consequence to misreporting of income. The penalty was initiated w.r.t. additional income ... Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax, if any, on the under-reported income

ITO, Ward-1, Palanpur vs. Gelot Agri Exports, Palanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/AHD/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(8)Section 40

amount of Rs.15.09 crores,i.e Rs.4,52,85,292/-, was added to the income of the assessee. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting ,under section 270A(1) r.w.s 270(A)(9) of the Act. 3. During penalty proceedings, the assessee remained unrepresented ... Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax, if any, on the under-reported income. (2) A person shall

Gelot Agri Exports, Deesa vs. ITO WD 1 Palanpur, Banaskantha

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(8)Section 40

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Limited, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2253/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Income Tax, Limited, No. 4, 10A, East Central Circle 2(4), Cross Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. Vellore 632 006, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aadcj4440P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Cancelling The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

show-cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1) of the Act prior to the date of completion of assessment proceedings for under-reporting of income and further passed order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the tax sought to be evaded, which are totally inconsistent ... limb of the Act, the Assessing Officer intent to impose penalty. We note that the Assessing Officer, in the show-cause notice, stated under-reporting of income, but, levied penalty upon tax 9 I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/24 sought to be evaded. On perusal of the notice dated 30.12.2018 issued under section

Pumpkin Pictures Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4197/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Bhosle, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee was asked to show cause why the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act be not imposed for under-reporting of income. Vide order dated 22/12/2023 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO held that the assessee has not disclosed income

Cummins India Ltd., Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 923/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.923/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Cummins India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, Tower- A, Cummins India Office Campus, Balewadi, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aaacc7258B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cummins India Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Company" Or "The Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal For The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 28Section 41

Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru also erred in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the IT Act for under-reporting of income. During the course of hearing, it was pointed by Ld. AR of the assessee company that an application for admitting additional evidence

Arif Hussain, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1274/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 27CSection 69A

order of assessment u/s. 144 of the Act dated 30/1 1/2019 for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income for which notice has been issued to the appellant and therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings suffers ... liable to be reduced substantially. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Assessment Unit ought to have appreciated that there was no under-reporting of income by the appellant and no penalty was imposable in terms of sub-section [6] of Section 270A of the Act under the facts

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4300/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under under section 270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under-reporting of Income.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged